Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

CIVILIAN WAR INJURIES (WOMEN, COMPENSATION).

Mrs. Tate: I beg to present a Petition signed by 40,000 inhabitants of Mersey-side showing that the civilian women of this country who face the same dangers and are liable to the same injuries from enemy action as civilian men, suffer great hardship by reason of the unequal rates of compensation for war injury payable to injured women civilians. The Petition concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will be pleased to grant them such relief as to your honourable House may seem fit.

Mr. Hannah: I beg to present a Petition signed by 24,377 inhabitants of Great Britain snowing that the civilian women of this country who face the same dangers and are liable to the same injuries from enemy action as civilian men, suffer great hardship by reason of the unequal rates of compensation for war injury payable to injured women civilians. The Petition concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will be pleased to grant them such relief as to your honourable House may seem fit.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

FACTORY WORKERS' STRIKE.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to make a statement on the inquiry into the four-day strike at a North-west factory, the name of which has been previously supplied?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The report of the committee of investigation makes it clear that the industrial relations of the factory are based upon full trade union co-operation and

that appropriate machinery is established for avoiding disputes at the works. The machinery has, however, not functioned as well as it might have done in the past, and small incidents have been allowed to grow into disputes. The immediate question at issue which led to the stoppage of work was the continued employment of an under-foreman, and the committee expressed the opinion that the foreman had not been guilty of any conduct which justified his removal. It is not proposed to publish the report, but copies have been sent to the company and to all the trade unions concerned, for their consideration. I have every hope that as a result of this and of the very full and complete exchange of views that took place in the course of the inquiry, the future position will be considerably improved.

WAR-TIME NURSERIES.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health the total cost involved in establishing a war-time nursery for 50 children up to the age of five years; how many staff are required; and what are the relevant figures for a nursery containing only children over the age of two years?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): To enable a fair comparison to be made between the cost of nurseries of different types it would be necessary to take account of the length of hours for which they are open and the extent to which the accommodation provided is fully utilised over a period of time. The circumstances of individual nurseries vary so much that it would be misleading to attempt to make a comparison based on the single factor mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lindsay: Would it be true to say that, broadly speaking, it does not take twice as many people if the nursery includes children under two?

Mrs. Tate: Of course it does.

Mr. Brown: I could not accept that suggestion. If my hon. Friend wants to know whether it requires more, naturally it does. The problem is entirely different in the case of a nursery where you have children of all ages for 12 hours a day, with perhaps a section for nights as well, compared with one which is part-time and for a shorter period.

Miss Rathbone: Is it not a fact that the Minister requires that there should be a fully-trained nurse and fully-trained teacher and is that really necessary, especially in towns where a doctor is available?

Mr. Brown: I should be very reluctant to lower the standard.

MARRIED WOMEN.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Labour, whether, in connection with small retail establishments in which the proprietor is called up for service with the Forces and the business and management are taken over by his wife, the wife may be immune from being conscripted, even though she may be within the age limit for the calling-up of women?

Mr. Bevin: Married women are not liable to be called up for Service in the Armed Forces. With regard to transfer to civilian employment, the wives of men serving in the Forces are not required to take employment away from home. If required to take local employment, they can appeal to a local appeal board, which would, no doubt, give sympathetic consideration to circumstances of the kind referred to in the Question.

Mr. De la Bère: Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inform local appeal boards that it is the wish of the Ministry of Labour that so far as possible they should view this matter sympathetically?

Mr. Bevin: I have already done so.

WORKERS' HOSTELS.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Paymaster-General whether attention is being given to the post-war utilisation of residential hostels for munition and land workers and the services and to the desirability of this accommodation being reserved as holiday centres under public management?

The Paymaster-General (Sir William Jowitt): I am not in a position to add anything at present to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service to my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) on 21st May.

Mr. White: Has my right hon. and learned Friend this matter in mind?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health, how many times in the past 12 months old age pensioners in the Cheltenham area in receipt of supplementary pensions have been interviewed by officials of the Assistance Board with a view to the amounts of their supplementary pensions being reviewed?

Mr. E. Brown: The Assistance Board inform me that, until January of this year the normal practice was for their officers to visit each pensioner who is in receipt of a supplementary pension once a quarter, and that since January the practice has been to visit once in six months. More frequent visits are paid in cases where the circumstances of the pensioner require it or where the pensioner reports that some change in his circumstances has occurred which may affect the amount of his supplementary pension. Statistical records of the actual visits paid in any area are not maintained and could not be compiled without considerable expenditure of staff time; but the Board estimate that in 75 per cent. of the cases visits are now paid twice a year.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a letter here from an old age pensioner whose circumstances have not varied and who says that she has been visited three times already this year? In view of that misuse of manpower, will he give consideration to the matter of restricting these visits to not more than once in 12 months?

Mr. Brown: I shall be very glad to see that letter. My hon. Friend will see from my Answer that it is the policy in at least 75 per cent. of the cases to visit only once in six months.

Mr. Lipson: Will not my right hon. Friend consider whether once in 12 months is not adequate in present circumstances, as the money involved does not justify such a use of man-power?

Mr. Brown: I am not sure about that. I will look into the case to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

DOCTORS, WEYMOUTH AND WYKE REGIS.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Health, whether he is aware


of the shortage of doctors in Weymouth and Wyke Regis; and whether he will consult with the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War with a view to the release from the Forces of two doctors whose names will be given to him by the Dorset local medical war committee?

Mr. E. Brown: I am informed that difficulties are arising in this area owing to the absence of a number of the doctors with the Forces. As regards the two doctors referred to in the last part of the Question, my officers are in communication with the Central Medical War Committee, through whom applications are made to the Service Departments for the release of medical officers where the circumstances justify that course.

MILK.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the continued production and sale of non-designated and other milk dangerous for human consumption, it is now intended to restore the powers of rejection of such milk to medical officers of health, of which they were deprived upon the introduction of the National Milk Scheme?

Mr. E. Brown: The National Milk Scheme does not affect any powers of medical officers of health in relation to the quality of milk.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that medical officers of health have the power of rejection of unfit milk in the matter of milk in schools? Why should not the general public be similarly protected?

Mr. Brown: There is misunderstanding. I would point out to my hon. Friend that the National Milk Scheme does not give this power to medical officers.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. David Adams:
9. To ask the Minister of Health whether, as it is not intended to pasteurise all milk, it has now been decided to raise to healthy standards farms at present producing milk dangerous for human consumption.

Mr. Adams: On a point of Order. I addressed this Question to the Minister of Agriculture, but it has reached the Minister of Health. Is not the Minister of Agriculture the correct Minister for a

Question dealing with cows and cow sheds?

Mr. Speaker: It appears to be a matter for the Minister of Health.

Mr. E. Brown: It is for local authorities to carry out the powers they possess under the Milk and Dairies Order, 1926, in relation to conditions of production at all farms. The new Milk Testing Scheme, and the advisory work in connection with it, should serve to supplement and assist in this work.

Mrs. Tate: Will the Minister on no account encourage the ruination by pasteurisation of one of our few natural foods?

Major C. S. Taylor: Is not the Minister aware that in certain foreign countries they will not feed non-pasteurised milk to valuable animals?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is it not a fact that 13,000 cases of pulmonary tuberculosis have been notified this year and that experts have told the right hon. Gentleman that 40 per cent. of those cases were due to milk infection? Has he no responsibility in this matter?

Mrs. Tate: Experts seldom agree.

Mr. Adams: Are not many of the cows producing milk for human consumption reeking with disease?

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PERSONS (RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health how many authorities have secured residences suitable for the accommodation of blind people in a non-institutional atmosphere: and whether he has considered encouraging or promoting schemes for that purpose?

Mr. E. Brown: I have no precise information, but I believe that the number of such authorities is five. In most areas the number of blind persons needing residential accommodation is very small, and his accommodation is often best provided at homes established by voluntary organisations. For this reason, and because of the present scarcity of suitable premises, I should not feel justified in making any general recommendation in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his Reply, may I ask whether he agrees that, where there is a demand for this kind of accommodation for blind people he will give it every encouragement?

Mr. Brown: It is a good idea. There are three cases in which local authorities do this themselves and two where they take joint action. That is my information.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS, EXPENDITURE).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India, whether expenditure on air-raid precautions in India is borne by the Central or by Provincial Governments; and to what extent this service has now been organised?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): Expenditure on air-raid precautions in India is shared between the Central and Provincial Governments according to a sliding scale under which an amount equivalent to about four per cent. of provincial revenue is borne by the Provincial Government concerned and thereafter a share increasing by stages to seven-eighths fall on the Central Government. Since the outbreak of war with Japan very considerable improvement has been made by Provincial Governments, particularly on the eastern side of India, in organising and training their Civil Defence services. Effective co-ordination and direction have been provided by the Government of India who are extending their training schools and have recently recruited for that purpose a number of experienced instructors from England. I wish to take this occasion to pay tribute to the valuable work in improving India's preparedness in this respect which was performed by Mr. Raghavendra Rao as member of the Governor-General's Executive Council in charge of Civil Defence until his recent untimely death.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the Minister any information regarding the provision of shelters in the Eastern parts of India; further is there any kind of organised cooperation between the Government and non-governmental bodies?

Mr. Amery: The question of shelters has to be dealt with according to the conditions of each locality, soil and so on.

There is abundant willing co-operation from the general population with the work being done.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Can the Minister say whether he has any knowledge of evacuation schemes from dangerous Provinces to safer Provinces?

Mr. Amery: I would sooner have notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON SERVICE.

Mr. William Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to consider offering established appointments as prison officers to' suitable applicants in order to assist in solving the staffing problem by attracting to these posts persons who would not be willing to accept them on a purely temporary basis?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): As the hon. Member is aware, recruitment to the Civil Service on a permanent basis has been suspended during the war, one reason for this being that men serving with the Forces should not be deprived of the opportunity at a later stage of obtaining established employment under the State. Owing to the man-power situation, the staffing of the Prison Service creates a difficult problem and I hope that it will be possible to find a satisfactory solution. The particular suggestion made by the hon. Member has received careful consideration, but my right hon. Friend can find no sufficient reason for treating the Prison Service differently from the rest of the Civil Service—particularly as this is a Service which has always relied to a very large extent on recruiting ex-service men of the N.C.O. type.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that while his Reply is a very good answer to any suggestion that we should have recruitment to established grades above the basic grade it is no answer at all to a proposition to have recruitment to the basic grade only, and will he look at the matter again in that light?

Mr. Peake: I will certainly consider the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (EVASION BY LAW-BREAKING).

Mr. W. Brown: asked the Home Secretary whether, in order to discourage persons of military age from committing crimes in order to be imprisoned and thus escape military service, he will authorise magistrates to impose suspended sentences in appropriate cases, the persons concerned to be made available to the military authorities forthwith and the question of whether the sentences can subsequently be cancelled being decided at a later date in the light of reports from the military authorities as to the conduct of the men concerned?

Mr. Peake: While there may be isolated cases in which civilians have deliberately broken the law in the hope that they will thereby escape military service, I cannot find any evidence to support the suggestion that there are many such cases or that there is need for any alteration of the law

Mr. Brown: Will the Minister consult with the Prison Officers' Association, whose members come into very close contact with prisoners, and who may be able to give him very glaring instances of offences committed precisely with this object?

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend's suggestion requires not that warders in the Prison Service but that magistrates should be able to discern the motives prompting individual crimes. Of course, if magistrates can in fact do that, there is nothing in the law which obliges them to commit offenders to prison, thereby enabling them to evade military service.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

WOMEN FIRE-GUAEDS (COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES).

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give an assurance that women will not be called upon for compulsory fire-watching without an undertaking that compensation equal to that received by men fire-watchers will be paid in the event of injury owing to enemy action?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): The rates of compensation payable to fire-guards for war service injuries are

governed by the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, and it would not be equitable or practicable to give more advantageous terms to fire-guards than to other classes covered by that scheme.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. Lady aware that to-day two further petitions have already been presented to the House on the question of unequal compensation and that there is a considerable amount of resentment in the country, which is culminating in meetings and protests, and does she not think that this is a form of exploitation of women by the Government?

Mrs. Tate: Is the hon. Lady also aware that this is supposed to be a democratic country, ruled by the will of the people, and that it is no longer the will of the people that gainfully-employed civilian women should be compensated for war injury at a lower rate than gainfully-employed civilian men, and is she also aware of the very sorry figure the Minister of Pensions cut when he opposed me recently on a public platform?

Miss Wilkinson: I am perfectly sure that in this democratic country the views of the hon. Ladies and their petitioners will be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Lipson: Does the hon. Lady agree that to accept the suggestion contained in this Question would be a good way to establish the principle of equal compensation?

PUBLICATION, "WHEN RUSSIA INVADES PALESTINE."

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the copy sent to him of the 4th edition of the publication "When Russia invades Palestine," published May, 1942, which, by its inferences and alleged biblical forecasts, throws doubt on the intentions and loyalty of the Soviet Union; and whether he proposes to take any action against those responsible for the publication of this book as calculated to damage Anglo-Soviet relations?

Mr. Peake: I have seen a copy of this publication, but there has not been an opportunity to consider it. I will communicate later with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Walkden: Does not the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend think it


wrong that, while Mr. Molotov was in this country negotiating good will and understanding with the British nation, thousands of copies should be rolled off the printing press of mischievous matter which includes the statement that Russia will certainly lead the anti-God nations in an attempt to invade Palestine, and is it not time that we stopped this kind of mischievous nonsense?

Mr. Peake: If my hon. Friend had done as his Question states and had enclosed a copy of this pamphlet when he wrote to my right hon. Friend, there would have been time to consider this matter. I have looked at the pamphlet, and it appears to consist largely of quotations from the Old Testament Book of Zechariah.

Mr. Walkden: Does my hon. Friend know that the—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

INVASION INSTRUCTION (WOMEN).

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Home Secretary whether, following the publication of the leaflet "Plans for Civilian Action in Invasion," it is proposed to instruct women who are anxious to use their spare time for the purpose of learning how to be of the maximum use in the event of an invasion?

Miss Wilkinson: The instruction of women in Civil Defence duties and other essential work is always in progress and would prove most valuable in the event of invasion. Other local tasks will be organised by invasion committees which will arrange training where this is necessary.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is no provision for the instruction of women in the country except that given by the Women's Home Defence, and further that there are now 200 Women's Home Defence units in large towns, universities and Government Departments, and does she not think it is time the Government took some official action?

Miss Wilkinson: I do not think the hon. Lady is correct in saying that there is only one kind of training in this country. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend arranges that wherever it is possible a

woman shall sit on each of these invasion committees.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not the duty of the local authorities to get the women together for the purpose of giving instruction in the case of invasion?

Miss Wilkinson: As I have already said, these matters are in the charge of the invasion committees, on a very large number of which women sit.

MR. CAHIR HEALY (DETENTION).

Mr. McGovern: asked the Home Secretary what form of inquiry has been held in place of the Advisory Committee appeal into the case of Mr. Cahir Healy, M.P.; and whether he has decided to hold Mr. Healy for the full period of the war or release him forthwith?

Mr. Peake: Mr. Healy, like any other person detained under the Regulation, has the right to make objections to the Advisory Committee, but he has not availed himself of it. He has, however, been given the information upon which my right hon. Friend decided to make the Order for his detention, and Mr. Healy wrote a letter in reply. My right hon. Friend thought it right to give Mr. Healy an opportunity of explaining more fully his statements in this letter, and asked the chairman of one of the panels of the Advisory Committee to see him on his behalf, and he has had a full report of the interview. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, he has decided that Mr. Healy must continue to be detained, though I cannot say for what period his detention may prove to be necessary.

Mr. McGovern: As Mr. Healy claims that his only interest was to work for a united Ireland, and that he had no intention of taking any action detrimental to the interests of this country, why should he be detained? As the Home Secretary, against the advice received from the Government of Northern Ireland, personally ordered his detention, is it not up to the Home Secretary to see that every avenue is explored in order to give this man a proper and fair deal?

Mr. Peake: I cannot, of course, enter into the merits of Mr. Healy's case; but the Home Secretary has gone beyond what is legally necessary in sending down to Brixton the chairman of one of the


panels of the Advisory Committee to interview Mr. Healy and to give him a statement of the reasons why he was detained. I do not think the Home Secretary can be expected to do more than to apply his mind to the case impartially, having received the report from the chairman, who interviewed Mr. Healy.

Mr. McGovern: But, as the question in connection with Mr. Healy is the narrow one contained in the letter, as to whether he intended to take any action during or following the war, is it not up to the Home Secretary to see that a case of this kind is publicly known, and that the individual is given a decent opportunity of defending himself, even though, as an Irishman, he objects to the ordinary Advisory Committee?

Mr. Peake: I do not know that he has put forward any demand for his case to be heard. He certainly has refused to accept the tribunal set up by this House for hearing objections against detention orders.

Mr. McGovern: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Reply, I will raise this question on the Adjournment. It is a public scandal.

WHOLE-TIME WORKER'S DISCHARGE, STREATHAM.

Mr. Robertson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the treatment accorded to Mr. W. A. Pennington, of Streatham, a whole-time Civil Defence rescue worker for two and a half years, who, on the day he came out of hospital after an operation for mastoid, was discharged without notice or pay in lieu of notice, with the result he had to apply for public assistance to maintain himself, his wife and family; and whether he will review this case?

Miss Wilkinson: Mr. Pennington received full pay until 20th March, 1942, on which date he completed the full authorised period of paid sick leave. He did not receive from the local authority notice of the date on which payment was due to cease, and, in view of that, he was given later a further week's pay up to 26th March in lieu of notice. Provision is made for the payment of whole-time members of the Civil Defence General Services during sick leave, not being absence due to war service injury, for a maximum of 13 weeks in any period of

52 weeks. The current arrangements in this respect were reviewed as recently as February last after consultation with the Trade Union interests concerned. My right hon. Friend does not contemplate the revision of these conditions at the present time, and he could not justify exceptional treatment of individual cases.

Mr. Robertson: Is the hon. Lady aware that it has taken me seven weeks' effort to get this man one week's pay, and is she aware that it is very brutal to tell a man on the day he comes out of hospital—a married man with a family—that he is dismissed; and is there any authority given by this House to my right hon. Friend to act towards any employee like this?

Miss Wilkinson: I quite appreciate the difficulties when a man came back and was told that he was no longer in the service, but as a matter of fact as soon as the matter was brought to our notice we communicated with the local authority concerned, and proper payment in lieu of notice was given. But, as I have stated, we did review the whole of these current arrangements last February, and the Trade Union representing the men came to an agreement with us over the improved conditions we then put forward.

FIREMEN, SOUTH LONDON (ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEME).

Mr. Robertson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the successful efforts of Fireman A. T. Evans and other firemen whereby the Marco Refrigerator Company agreed to instal light machinery for war work in South London fire stations; and why this scheme has not been proceeded with?

Miss Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend is making inquiries into this case and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robertson: Is the hon. Lady aware that after 12 months of idleness Fireman Evans and other firemen showed great enterprise in going out to get work, and that when their plans were almost complete they notified their officer, who passed the matter on to headquarters, and that since then the whole project has been damped down and Fireman Evans has been discouraged from making further inquiries? Is not that quite wrong?

Miss Wilkinson: The hon. Member only put this Question down on Tuesday. It came before us on Wednesday, and there has not been time to make inquiries.

Mr. Robertson: Is the hon. Lady aware that Fireman Evans brought this matter up two months ago, and still no progress has been made?

Miss Wilkinson: That was not the Question of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION.

Major Owen: asked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Church Temporalities, established under the Welsh Church Acts for purely temporary functions, are still in possession of substantially all the funds intended for charitable purposes; and, as they have now held this fund of nearly £2,000,000 for close upon 25 years to the deprivation of charitable causes, spending nearly £250,000 on salaries and other expenses and a further £40,000 in law charges, will he take steps in the coming autumn to wind up the administration of the Commissioners;
(2) whether he is aware that the present custodianship of the Commissioners established under the Welsh Church Acts is to be of indefinite duration and that £10,000 per annum of these charitable funds are spent in administrative expenses; and what steps are being taken beyond the partial distribution of funds next autumn to relieve the beneficiaries who have been committed to capital liabilities and who are embarrassed by the postponement of the full distribution of funds?

Mr. Peake: My right hon. Friend has made careful inquiries and is satisfied that the continuation of the life of the Welsh Commissioners has been due to circumstances quite beyond their control. Their work is, however, now nearing completion, although the final distribution to beneficiaries must necessarily await the computation by the Tithe Redemption Commission of the amount of Redemption Stock to which the Welsh Commissioners are entitled. I know of only one case in which embarrassment was alleged to have occurred, and understand that payment to the full amount requested was made last January. The beneficiaries are

now receiving all the land to which they are entitled. It is the intention of the Commissioners to make the partial distribution of funds this autumn on as substantial a scale as the Welsh Church Acts permit.

Major Owen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the University College of North Wales has undertaken very heavy financial responsibilities for buildings, and that unless this money is distributed soon they will have to borrow money at a very heavy rate of interest to meet their commitments, and is it not a scandal that one Department of the Government is able to hold up this distribution for a period of 25 years at an enormous expense and loss to the beneficiaries?

Mr. Peake: As I have said, my right hon. Friend has made personal inquiries into this matter, and he is satisfied that the Commission have conducted their affairs properly and expeditiously. There will, however, this autumn be a very substantial distribution of cash to the beneficiaries.

Major Owen: Could the hon. Gentleman give some kind of indication as to when the Commissioners will finish their work, and when this question of tithe redemption will be settled by the Treasury or by the Home Secretary himself?

Mr. Peake: I have said that the Commissioners are now nearing the completion of their work, and Parliament will have an opportunity this autumn of discussing the position of the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction which is felt as a consequence of the inadequacy of the amount of the lump sums payable to dependent widows and children under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and whether he is prepared to give consideration to the measures necessary to provide an immediate increase in the amount thereof?

Mr. Peake: No special representations have been made to my right hon. Friend on this question. Since the benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act in fatal cases were settled, the position of widows


and children has been greatly improved by the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1936, no account being taken in fixing the pensions and allowances under that Act of any sum awarded as compensation. Further provision has been made by the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, for supplementing these pensions where necessary. The consideration of any revision of these allowances must await the report of the Survey of the Social Services, which is now in progress.

Mr. Davidson: When the hon. Gentleman says that no representations have been made on this subject, is he aware that the Home Secretary himself made many and adequate representations on this subject when he sat on this side of the House?

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman has not sat on that side of the House since the Act to which I referred in my answer was passed.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the increasing difficulties of workmen now over 21½ years of age who are totally, or partially, disabled as a consequence of injuries by accident which arose out of, and in the course of, their employment when they were under that age; and whether he is prepared to give consideration to the suggestions set out in paragraphs (89) to (93), inclusive, of the Memorandum of Evidence submitted to the Royal Commission on Workmen's Compensation by the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain?

Mr. Peake: I understand that in view of recent and prospective increases in wages, the workmen, to whom my hon. Friend refers have rights under Section 11 (3) of the Act in addition to those under Section 11 (2). I am not clear, therefore, what are the difficulties referred to, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any cases he has in mind, I will examine them.

Mr. Ritson: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction which is felt as a consequence of the anomalous position of widows who, at the time of their husband's death, are receiving wages for performing work of national importance, but who find on making a claim for the amounts payable under the

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, Section 8, that such wages are taken into account and thus reduce the amount of the lump sum which, but for the receipt of such wages, would have been payable under that Act; and will he consider the necessary remedial measures?

Mr. Peake: The principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act is that compensation is payable in respect of the death of a workman to persons wholly or partially dependent upon the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, and the question of the extent of dependency is one to be decided by the court. The Act provides that in cases of partial dependency, the compensation shall be such sum, not exceeding the amount payable in cases of total dependency, as will be reasonable and proportionate to the loss sustained by such dependants. I have not heard of any such cases as my hon. Friend refers to, but if he will furnish me with particulars I shall be glad to consider them.

Mr. Ritson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is having a very serious effect upon the call by the Minister of Labour to married women without children to go into industry, when they are in danger, if their husband is killed while they are doing so, of losing their dependency?

Mr. Peake: I quite see the point which the hon. Member is making. I should like to have some specific instances brought to my notice, but I do not see any reason why the court, in assessing the degree of dependency, should not take into account the temporary nature of the employment of the widow.

Mr. Ritson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have had a case in Durham? As he has promised to consider it, I will send him the particulars.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that the judge in the court would have power under the law to have regard to the temporary nature of the employment of the widow?

Mr. Peake: Yes, I am quite clear on that point.

Mr. George Griffiths: If the matter is not cleared up satisfactorily, will the Government introduce some sort of legislation whereby the widow will not lose compensation when the man is killed?

Mr. Peake: Certainly there is a substantial point here, and I should like individual cases to consider.

Mr. Ritson: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the widespread dissatisfaction which is felt as a consequence of the inadequacy of the amount of the weekly rates payable under the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to give consideration to the measures necessary to provide an immediate increase in the weekly amount payable?

Mr. Peake: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a Question by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) on Tuesday.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE, LONDON.

Major Stourton: asked the Home Secretary the number of cases of robbery, or attempted robbery, with violence reported in the Metropolitan police area during the past three months to the latest convenient date; and whether the figures show a ratio of increase compared with the period of the previous 12 months?

Mr. Peake: Forty-three cases of robbery with violence and assaults with intent to rob were reported in the Metropolitan Police District during the three months ended 31st May, 1942. There were 177 cases in the 12 months immediately preceding, giving an average figure of about 44 for every three months during that period. The figure for the corresponding three months of 1941 was 38.

Major Stourton: Will my hon. Friend give the House the assurance that no effort will be spared to stamp out this particularly loathsome form of crime?

Mr. Peake: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better put that Question on the Paper. He asked for statistical information, and I have given it.

Major Stourton: Surely the hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that every effort will be made to stamp out this particular form of crime?

Mr. Peake: Every effort is made all the time to stamp out all forms of crime.

Major Leighton: Would it not be a good thing to warn the country and ask people to carry some weapon with which to protect themselves?

Oral Answers to Questions — BY-ELECTIONS (SERVICE WOMEN VOTERS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary why the same facilities available for men serving in the Armed Forces to vote at by-elections are not afforded to women members of the Forces?

Mr. Peake: The question whether the procedure under which men in His Majesty's Forces whose names are on the Register are entitled to vote as absent voters applies to members of the women's Services who are not serving abroad or afloat is a legal question on which I have no power to make an authoritative pronouncement. The position of such persons is, however, receiving further consideration.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will make a statement on this matter?

Mr. Peake: It involves a very delicate question of law upon which I am in consultation with the Attorney-General.

Miss Cazalet: Is the hon. Member aware that there is very great feeling in the Services on this matter?

Mr. Peake: I am fully aware of that, and if any anomaly does exist, steps must, of course, be taken to rectify it immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

IRISH HISTORY TEACHING.

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of our relations with Eire, any steps are being taken to improve the teaching of Irish history in English schools?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I am not clear in what respects my hon. Friend thinks that improvement in the teaching of this subject is called for. If he will give me particulars, I will gladly consider the matter further.

Mr. Hannah: Is it not a fact that the Venerable Bede, more than 1,000 years ago, complained of bad relations between


the two countries; and would it not be possible, by teaching more of what Ireland did for us in those far-off days, to improve relations?

Mr. Butler: I am sure we can rely on my hon. Friend to improve our knowledge of the subject.

Professor Savory: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to include in these lessons a full account of the abandonment of the Treaty ports by the British Government in 1938, in spite of the five-times-repeated protests of the Government of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Watkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to encourage the teaching of unbiased English history in Irish Schools?

EMPIRE CO-ORDINATION.

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Education whether any efforts are being made to co-ordinate educational methods in different countries of the Empire?

Mr. Butler: The Board have encouraged the interchange of teachers between this country and the Dominions. They cooperate with the Colonial Office in recruiting teachers for the Colonies, and are represented on the Advisory Committee on Education in the Colonies. My hon. Friend will recollect that from time to time Imperial Education Conferences have been convened by the Board.

Mr. Hannah: Could not very much more be done about the interchange of teachers between the different parts of the Empire?

Mr. Butler: I sincerely hope that as circumstances improve this will be one of the developments that we shall foster.

YOUTH COMMITTEE FOR WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Education why, in relation to the setting-up of the Youth Advisory Council, he has failed to have regard to the policy of the Government to secure adequate representation for Wales?

Mr. Butler: Far from failing to secure adequate representation from Wales, the hon. Member will be glad to hear that I am assisted in the discharge of my

responsibilities by a special Youth Committee for Wales and Monmouthshire, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather unfortunate, in view of the importance of these youth committees, and in view of the importance of Wales, that he did not find a moment to mention this Committee in the course of his survey of his Department the other day?

Mr. Butler: I am very glad to repair the omission now. I thought that the work of this Committee and of its chairman was so well known that no reference to it was necessary. As the hon. Member knows, I am desirous of doing my best for Wales.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Committee to consider the future of the public schools will be concerned with girls' schools as well as boys' schools.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I propose to ask the Committee to consider, as part of their terms of reference, how far measures recommended in the case of boys' schools are applicable also to girls'.

Mr. Lipson: Is it the intention to include a woman on this Committee?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I think so.

Mr. Hannah: Will co-educational schools also be included?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Education the total accommodation available in public schools, and how much of this is now being filled; how many vacancies it is estimated may be available or filled by boys from elementary schools; and whether he has received any scheme, from the Headmasters' Conference or from other sources, respecting the possible admission of elementary schoolboys, by scholarship or otherwise?

Mr. Butler: The number of pupils in schools represented on the Headmasters' Conference, according to the most recent returns, is approximately 64,700; of this total 38,200 are in grant-aided schools, and 26,500 in schools not in receipt of grant. I am unable to say what is the total accommodation of these schools and


the number of vacant places. The hon. Member will appreciate that a considerable number of boys educated in public elementary schools are already in attendance at grant-aided schools represented on the Conference. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the incidence of this matter being considered by the special Committee which the right hon. Gentleman is setting up?

Mr. Butler: I have no doubt they will consider the points that the hon. Member has raised.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that they do consider these points, as they are of tremendous importance?

Mr. Butler: As I have said before, I am announcing shortly the full terms of reference. I think it will be seen that they are wide, and cover almost every angle of the subject.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education the terms of reference and the names of the Committee which he has set up to inquire into the extension of boarding school education?

Mr. Butler: I hope to be in a position to announce the terms of reference and names of members invited to serve on the Committee, shortly.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to clarify the terms of reference, because the Parliamentary Secretary somewhat enlarged the scope of the subject when he dealt with it the other day?

Mr. Butler: I shall make the terms of reference as clear as I can when I announce them.

MANUAL TRAINING.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the loss to educational efficiency in a number of grant-aided secondary schools in which the workshops or manual training centres are no longer made use of owing to war conditions; and whether he will encourage the resumption of training in woodwork wherever this is possible?

Mr. Butler: I am aware that certain secondary schools are finding difficulty in maintaining normal instruction in manual training, owing to causes arising out of the war. I am anxious to help such schools to overcome their difficulties, so far as this is possible, and if my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind I shall be pleased to investigate them.

Mr. Harvey: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that one of the difficulties is the shortage of wood? Will he get in touch with the Ministry of Aircraft Production in order to make use of waste wood, which might be of great service?

Mr. Butler: Yes; I have had an opportunity of going around the country and seeing the schools, and I am in touch with the authorities, to see what we can do.

MILK AND SCHOOL MEALS (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to ask local education authorities to provide milk and school dinners during the summer holidays?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. A circular on this and other matters relating to the care of children during the holidays is in course of preparation.

Mr. Lipson: Where local authorities cannot provide facilities in schools, will my right hon. Friend arrange for British Restaurants in the areas concerned to provide milk and meals, if necessary, on the same basis?

Mr. Butler: This is the sort of method we have in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (OVERTIME).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, as the conditions under which payment is made for overtime in the Civil Service are governed by awards of the industrial court or by agreements with the staff associations, he will take steps, by conference, or in some other way than by unilateral action, to make arrangements more economical to the Government from the point of view of hours worked and overtime payments made during the war?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): It is the general policy of His Majesty's Government that


peace-time agreements with regard to conditions of service should be continued in war-time. It would, in their view, be contrary to this policy to seek to modify any such arrangements to the detriment of their own employees.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR-TIME NURSERIES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many war-time nurseries are now established in Scotland?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The total number of day nurseries in Scotland is now 49; of these 28 have been provided under the Government War-Time Nurseries Scheme. In addition, 61 war-time nurseries have been approved, and are in various stages of preparation.

Mr. Lindsay: Is there any special reason why there should be 1,400 in England and Wales, and only a small number in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: As the hon. Member knows, conditions differ very widely. But he will have an opportunity of raising this matter, no doubt, on the Scottish Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOFT FRUIT (MAXIMUM PRICES) ORDER.

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether permission has now been granted to the small-scale growers of cherries and other fruit to dispose of their produce direct to buyers other than accredited wholesalers or agents?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): The provisions of the Soft Fruit (Maximum Prices) Order were settled after detailed conference with the National Farmers' Union, as representing the interests of growers. My Noble Friend, having now received further advice from the Union, has decided to make immediately a general licence enabling all growers with cultivations not exceeding one acre of any of the fruits specified in the Order, including strawberries, or of cherries, to sell their produce of that fruit at wholesale or retail prices according to the nature of the

transaction. In the event of a grower desiring to sell direct to consumers, it will be necessary for him to hold or to obtain a retailer's licence from his local food control committee.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer shows the complete inability of his Department to grasp the facts laid before him last Saturday and last Monday, and that it will make confusion worse confounded? Is he also aware that one of our growers applied a fortnight ago for a retail licence, and that he has not had it yet; that the whole industry is in chaos, and that people belonging to it do not know whether they are breaking the law or not? I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECOND FRONT.

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent agreement between Mr. Molotov and himself on the question of opening a second front in Europe, and in the interests of preserving the maximum of secrecy regarding our strategic plans, he will issue a public statement as to the undesirability of continually mentioning the necessity for opening a second front in newspaper articles and speeches?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): While it is natural that full expression should be given to our determination to open a second front, I am glad to take this opportunity of reiterating publicly the undesirability of speculation, whether in articles or in speeches as to the time or place of future Allied offensive operations.

Major Petherick: Is it not the fact that any decision taken in regard to any campaign in any part of the world can only be left safely to those who have the full facts at their disposal, namely, the Government, and is "not such slipshod strategy idiotic and dangerous?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

DISPOSSESSED FARMERS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture how the rents payable to landlords on the dispossession of existing


tenants owing to bad farming practice are finally determined in the event of a dispute with the landlord?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Where the tenant is dispossessed by a county war agricultural executive committee for bad farming, the landlord is usually given an opportunity of finding a suitable tenant, subject to the approval of the committee. In such case the rent payable by the new tenant is a matter for voluntary arrangement between the parties and consequently no statutory machinery exists for settling the amount of rent in such cases. Where the committee consider it advisable to take possession of the land in addition to terminating the tenancy, the compensation payable to the landlord in the nature of rent is laid down in Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. In the event of a dispute, the landlord is normally given an opportunity of agreeing to the matter being settled by reference to an arbitrator or, alternatively, the matter is determined by the General Tribunal set up under the Act.

GRASS (RAILWAY SIDINGS).

Lieut. -Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to use for fodder the grass cut at the sides of the railways; whether his attention has been called to the amount that was burnt last year; and whether in cases where the adjoining farmer cannot take it away the companies stack it or use silos to avoid waste?

Mr. Hudson: After consultation with the railway authorities farmers have been advised that, as in previous years, they should apply to the local Stationmaster for permission to harvest grass on railway embankments for hay or silage or bedding. I hope that full advantage will be taken of these facilities. The railway companies themselves harvest the grass from certain stretches of line for feeding to their own horses, but shortage of suitable labour and the exigencies of operational requirements necessarily limit what they can do. Grass which is not harvested must be burned off to minimise the risk of fire and to prevent seeds being blown on to the tracks.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the

amount that was actually burnt last year or that is likely to be burnt this year?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER.

PETROL DISTRIBUTION (LOCAL OFFICIALS' INSTRUCTIONS).

Mr. Riley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that officials in charge of local motor taxation offices complain that they are not furnished with instructions regarding the changes in the distribution of petrol for the use of motor-cars and they can only refer inquirers to the district controller; and will he consider having local officials informed of any changes which may take place?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Local taxation offices are not offices of my Department, but by arrangement with my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport and the local authorities concerned, they are, like post offices, enabled to issue certain forms and documents. I am not aware of any complaint on their behalf as to lack of the information necessary for that work. Inquiries such as those referred to by my hon. Friend should be addressed to the Divisional Petroleum Officer.

Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is somewhat inconvenient for local residents to have to apply to the district controller, who may be many miles away from the town; and could not the local taxation officer have information to satisfy inquirers?

Major Lloyd George: Some decisions have to be taken rather quickly, but we do our best to let them have the information as soon as it can be got.

CONTROLLER-GENERAL.

Mr. Riley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the appointment of Lord Hyndley of Meads as Controller-General of the coal industry provides for his relinquishment of the many directorships which he holds in colliery companies; and whether, while he is Controller-General, he will cease to have any official position in any colliery company?

Major Lloyd George: Lord Hyndley resigned all his colliery directorships on accepting his present appointment. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes."

MINE ACCIDENT, RISCA (PAY DEDUCTIONS).

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that, on 14th May, a man received a fatal accident at the Risca colliery, Monmouthshire; that nine men, at great risk to themselves, got him from under the fall and carried him home; that when pay day came they found half-a-shift had been deducted from each of them, including the dead man; and will he see that in future these exasperating things, which are the cause of many disputes and loss of output, shall cease?

Major Lloyd George: I am making inquiries into this case and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

SURPLUS GAS CONSUMPTION.

Sir C. Edwards: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, before putting in force the fuel rationing scheme, he will consider the position of the Bedwellty Urban District Council, who produce no gas themselves but take it from the Rhymney and Aber Gas Company who in turn take it from the Powell Duffryn Associated coke-oven plant at Bargoed; that this gas will continue to be made even if not taken and used, as this company make large quantities of coke for steel making; and, as no coal would be saved by rationing gas in this area, will he give special consideration to the matter?

Major Lloyd George: I agree with my hon. Friend that reduction of domestic consumption of gas is undesirable in districts where gas is a by-product of industrial processes, and where no corresponding saving of coal would be effected. I hope, if rationing is introduced, that it will be possible to allow unrestricted consumption of surplus gas, while retaining control of the consumption of other fuels.

COAL CONSUMPTION (PUBLICATION).

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will publish week by week the national coal consumption, together with the consumption of

coal in the corresponding periods for the previous three years?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.

Mr. Bossom: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend publish the figures monthly so that there would not be any sudden rationing and quick consumption without some warning?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think it would be in the national interest to publish these figures at all.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister take care that no information is submitted to the public that would make the nationalisation of the industry necessary?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TOYS.

Mr. Riley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of an acute shortage in the supply of children's summer playthings such as buckets and spades; whether he will afford reasonable facilities for the manufacture of these children's playthings provided they are made from surplus waste materials not essential to the war effort?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): The manufacture of metal toys, including children's buckets and spades, has been prohibited in order to free the labour, material and capacity involved for the manufacture of munitions. Some toys are still being made from materials which are not in such short supply.

Mr. Mack: Would it not be to the national advantage that the only spades permitted to be manufactured should be those for agricultural purposes and grave diggers?

SMALL TRADERS (SELLING PRICES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to assisting the small retailers throughout the country, he will fix both minimum and maximum selling prices of goods?

Captain Waterhouse: No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware of the enormous advantage to the multiple stores over the small


retailer of the low minimum prices fixed and will he consider this matter again? And can he tell me why the report of the Retail Trade Committee has been published when that report is not available to the Members of this House? Why is this honourable House always ignored by the Board of Trade and this information given to the Press without any knowledge being given to the House at all?

Captain Waterhouse: In answer to the only part of the Supplementary Question which is relative to the Question on the Paper, I would point out to my hon. Friend that it is very often the small shopkeepers themselves who are able to sell under the maximum prices, and, therefore, in such cases, it would be a disadvantage to adopt any such proposal as my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the statement that has been made in the Press, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment. It is a slight on this honourable House.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCER-GAS PLANT.

Mr. W. Brown: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, before he announces the adoption by the Ministry of a standardised design of producer-gas plant for motor vehicles, he will give road transport organisations and existing manufacturers an opportunity of examining the specifications and suggesting improvements; and whether he will direct that the skill and resources of existing makers will be fully utilised in the manufacture of this or any other type of producer-gas plant?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): The design of producer chosen for public service vehicles has been successfully operated for a considerable time by one of the largest omnibus interests in the country. The design chosen for goods vehicles has been subjected to intensive tests under the supervision of a Committee of experts. Experience will doubtless suggest improvements, but immediate action is now required, and for that reason I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that there should be further consultations

before manufacture is begun. My hon. Friend may, however, be assured that the closest touch is being maintained with road transport interests. My Noble Friend will bear in mind the skill and resources of all manufacturers of producer gas plants. But my hon. Friend will appreciate that many factors must be borne in mind, including the advantages of mass-production, and the lower cost and faster output which that will give.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH MERCHANT SHIPPING (ENEMY USE).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare if he can give any information about the 1,000,000 tons of merchant shipping given to the Axis Powers by the French; and whether he has any information as to who will man the ships, Frenchmen or Germans?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): I have seen reports to this effect in the Press, but I have not been able to obtain confirmation of them. Since the Franco-German Armistice five French and five Allied vessels have been handed over by the Vichy Government to Germany or Italy. As regards the transfer to Japan of French ships in Far Eastern waters, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 23rd April.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBING POLICY.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the complaints from serving naval and military officers and observers in Libya, Cairo and India, of the acute shortage of bomber strength in these zones, where greater bombing power would have, prevented withdrawals and defeats of our naval and military forces; and, whether, in order to allay national uneasiness regarding our major strategy, he will offer assurances that the best possible dispositions are being made of our now superior bomber and fighter forces and particularly an assurance that the present exceptional concentration of bomber offensive upon Germany is not misdirected effort?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): No doubt the issues raised in my hon. Friend's Question will be discussed in the Debate in the next series of Sittings; but meanwhile I can gladly give him the assurances for which he asks in the latter part of his Question.

Mr. Stewart: Can we take it, in view of the great importance of the matter, that a statement on behalf of the Air Ministry will be made during the forthcoming Debate?

Captain Balfour: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air said yesterday in the House that, if an opportunity is offered him, he will be very glad to make a statement on the subject raised in yesterday's Question, and I will draw his attention to the request of the hon. Gentleman that, if such a statement is made, he will also include his particular question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS (STAFF).

M. J. J. Davidson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings how many members of the Ministry of Works and Buildings staff in administrative posts, have resigned during the past three months?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): No members of the staff of the Ministry, in administrative posts, have resigned during the past three months.

Mr. Davidson: Have any resignations been asked for?

Mr. Hicks: I am not aware that they have.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS, FAR EAST (DEPENDANTS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to assist the dependants of British subjects whose lives or livelihood have been lost through the conquest of the Far East by the enemy?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am glad to be able to say that an unofficial

fund is being formed which will be available to supplement in special cases of individual need the official action referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply of 9th June to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes).

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the response to this unofficial fund will be sufficiently satisfactory to enable adequate help to be given to these unfortunate people?

Mr. Macmillan: I think the sources out of which the fund would be raised will be sufficient and that the flexibility of this matter will meet cases of need better than a more rigid system.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING ORGANISATIONS.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings when the last survey of the nation's building organisations was undertaken by his Department and, arising from the survey, what decisions were arrived at with regard to future planning?

Mr. Hicks: The latest return from building and civil engineering undertakings registered with the Department under Defence Regulation 56AB was made on 30th May last, when particulars were obtained of the numbers employed by such undertakings on various classes of building and contracting work. No decisions with regard to future planning have been taken on the information provided by this return, which is primarily required for present purposes. The information will be made available to the industry for study.

Mr. Davidson: Has this survey taken in all building organisations in the country or only building organisations on the Ministry's lists?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir, the survey was very complete and included not only employers but all workmen.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether building organisations that have grouped together as district organisations for the purpose of carrying out war building work, are refused the right to tender for contracts issued by his Department?

Mr. Hicks: No, Sir. The Department is prepared to consider tenders for building works from such organisations if they are submitted by a responsible firm as leader of the group or in such other manner as to make it possible for the Department to enter into a contract with the parties concerned and provided that it is satisfied that the group had adequate financial resources, key personnel and organising ability to handle the proposed service.

Mr. Thorne: Is the building organisation of the Co-operative Society allowed to tender for work?

Mr. Hicks: They are already employed.

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED PREMISES.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to instructions in reference to the requisitioning of property that compensation should be paid on the assumption that no licence would be granted to open a business establishment; and, in view of the fact that this must always operate against the owner, will he issue instructions that the rent should be equitable in all the circumstances with no assumption against the owner?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Arthur Henderson): If a claimant wishes his property to be assessed as a shop for the purposes of compensation, although it was not open as a shop at the time of requisition and could not under Statutory Rules and Orders 1784 and 1933 of 1941 have been opened as a shop without a licence, then it is for the claimant to produce evidence that he would, in fact, have received a licence to open the premises as a shop, if they had not been requisitioned.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Am I to understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Board of Trade refuse a licence for a shop, that discounts the value of the shop? Do the War Office negotiate on the basis of the rent pre-war?

Mr. Henderson: So far as the War Office are concerned, we take the position at the time the premises are requisitioned, which means that if no licence has been issued at that time, we cannot take into account any hypothetical situation that

might have arisen if the premises had not been requisitioned.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not a fact that that gives the War Office and other Government Departments a monopoly of empty property on their own estimates?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. I think it means that the War Office take the premises as they find them on the date on which they are requisitioned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House the Business for the next series of Sitting Days?

The Lord Privy Seal(Sir Stafford Cripps): The Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—Supply (10th Allotted Day):—Committee. The Ministry of Health Estimates will be considered.
Second and Third Sitting Days:—These will be set apart for a discussion on the battle in Libya and operations in the Mediterranean. I understand that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) and others have to-day tabled a Motion which is in the form of a Motion of Censure on the Government, and we, therefore, propose that the Debate should take place on that Motion.

Sir Percy Harris: Would my right hon. and learned Friend arrange that on the second Sitting Day the Sitting should be extended as long as possible, because a large number of people want to speak?

Sir S. Cripps: Undoubtedly, I think it would be wise to suspend the Rule on that day.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: With regard to the scope of the Debate, I take it that my right hon. and learned Friend did not mean that the subject of the Debate will be limited merely to Libya and the Mediterranean but that the wider conduct of the war will also be included? Is the Minister able to give me any further answer to the question I put to him a few days ago, that in view of the great importance—if not the supreme importance—of air power in this war, a statement will be made by, or on behalf of, the Air Minister at an early stage in the Debate?

Sir S. Cripps: The scope of the Debate will be ruled by the form of the Motion of Censure, which will, from what I have seen of it, give a very wide scope indeed. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it must be for the Government to decide, as the Debate proceeds, what Government speakers will take part and at what time.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Is it proposed to have any part of the Debate in Secret Session?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Mr. Hannah: Can there be a limit to the length of the speeches?

Sir S. Cripps: I think that question was probably raised even more than 1,000 years ago. It has not yet been settled, and there is no proposal to settle it on this occasion.

Mr. Lipson: Is it proposed to suspend the Rule on the first Sitting Day, on the Vote for the Ministry of Health?

Sir S. Cripps: I think the House would wish to have a full opportunity for Debate on the first Sitting Day also.

Major C. S. Taylor: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether time will be given for discussion of the Motion standing in the name of myself and other hon. Members on the question of Service pay and allowances?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that at the moment, in view of the incursion of other matters into the time of the House, it has been impossible to go into the position, but the Government have it in mind and will bear it in mind.

Major Taylor: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, could we have an assurance that this Motion will be considered before the next Recess?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid it is impossible to give any assurance of that kind. I cannot go further than saying that we appreciate that there are Members who wish the matter to be raised in the House.

Mr. Greenwood: On a question of clarity, when the Leader of the House suggested, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), that the Rule would be suspended on the second

Sitting Day, I take it he meant the first day of the Debate, and that the other day would be left open for further consideration?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. I imagine that it would probably be convenient on the third Sitting Day to finish the Debate at a reasonable time, but we will see how the matter progresses.

Mr. McGovern: Can my right hon. and learned Friend inform us whether the Prime Minister is intending to be present?

Sir S. Cripps: It is to be hoped that the Prime Minister will speak in the course of the Debate.

SECRET SESSION.

Notice taken, that Strangers were present.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

[Mr. SPEAKER afterwards issued the following Report of the Proceedings in Secret Session:

The House considered the Report of the Committee of Privileges presented on 23rd June upon the matter of the complaint referred to it on 5th May, in respect of a Member charged with having committed a breach of privilege by disclosing a portion of the proceedings of the Secret Session of 23rd April. The House agreed with the Report of the Committee of Privileges that the charge had not been proved and in the result absolved the hon. Member of the charge.]

The House subsequently resumed in Public Session.

COLONIAL AFFAIRS DEBATE (CORRECTION IN SPEECH).

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I should like to take the earliest opportunity to correct an error in my closing speech in the Debate in this House yesterday. The question of the relationship of the Atlantic Charter to the Colonial Empire having been raised, I thought it desirable to quote what the Prime Minister had said on this subject. Unfortunately, the wording which I was
given was not a verbatim quotation from my right honourable Friend's statement, and, under the impression that it was the exact text, I quoted it as my right honourable Friend's words. The relevant extract from the Prime Minister's actual statement reads as follows:
Secondly, the Joint Declaration does not qualify in any way the various statements of policy which have been made from time to time about the development of constitutional government in India, Burma or other parts of the British Empire. We are pledged by the Declaration of August, 1940, to help India to obtain free and equal partnership in the British Commonwealth with ourselves, subject, of course, to the fulfilment of obligations

arising from our long connection with India and our responsibilities to its many creeds, races and interests. Burma also is covered by our considered policy of establishing Burmese self-government and by the measures already in progress. At the Atlantic Meeting, we had in mind, primarily, the restoration of the sovereignty, self-government and national life of the States and nations of Europe now under the Nazi yoke, and the principles governing any alterations in the territorial boundaries which may have to be made. So that is quite a separate problem from the progressive evolution of self-governing institutions in the regions and peoples which owe allegiance to the British Crown. We have made declarations on these matters which are complete in themselves, free from ambiguity and related to the conditions and circumstances of the territories and peoples affected. They will be found to be entirely in harmony with the high conception of freedom and justice which inspired the Joint Declaration.
I need not say how sorry I am that through inadvertence I had been given a précis rather than the exact text and that I have to put the House to this inconvenience. I am grateful for your permission, Sir, to correct the error; because of the importance of having the actual text of the Declaration.

ALLIED POWERS (WAR SERVICE) BILL.

Motion for Second Reading read.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill may, I think, be fittingly described as the last link in the chain of novel but appropriate legislation which has been designed to meet the situation arising from the presence in England of seven independent sovereign Allied Governments, namely, the Polish, Dutch, Belgian, Greek, Norwegian, Yugo-Slav and Czechoslovak Governments. Parliament has already passed the Allied Forces Act, 1940, which enabled Allied Governments to maintain discipline among persons already serving in their own forces; also, the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1941, which provided proper status for the personnel of Allied Governments; and also the Allied Powers (Marine Courts) Act, 1941, which enabled the Allied Governments to maintain discipline in their own ships and also to direct their seamen to go to sea. This Bill is designed to complete the series. The House will be aware that it is the declared policy of His Majesty's


Government towards these Governments that
we should give every possible facility to them to continue their administration from the hospitality of British soil. They all possess and are actually developing national Armed Forces which are giving the most valuable services to the Allied cause, and I am sure that the House would wish to pay this tribute to the efforts which the Allied Governments have made in this respect. It needed great courage amid all their tribulations to set to work to reconstitute their own Armed Forces on land, at sea and in the air, and we in this country have been thrilled to read from time to time in the Press reports of their gallant exploits in battle.
This Bill has naturally been discussed very fully with representatives of these Governments, and all, with one exception, have already signified their readiness in principle to accept the proposal. The exception is the Czechoslovak Government, who, for reasons connected with their own law, have so far not felt able to agree to the Bill being applied to their nationals. But if and when the Bill is passed, further discussions will take place with all the Allied Governments, including the Czechoslovak Government, in regard to the application of its provisions to Allies individually, and it is confidently hoped that this will lead to a complete solution of the problem with regard to the Allied Governments established in this country. The powers outlined in the Bill will be required only in respect of quite a small proportion of Allied man-power in this country. It is estimated that less than 10,000 Allied nationals of military age are still in civilian life in this country, and of these probably one-third at least are engaged on such important work that it would not be in the interests of the Allied cause to move them. Provision is made in this Bill in this respect. There is, however, I think, a general consensus of opinion that it should no longer be possible for an Allied national in this country who is of military age to avoid military service except on the ground of the importance of his civilian work.
Therefore the main object of the Bill is to establish the proper procedure, with the necessary powers, for ensuring that any Allied national of military age and resident in Great Britain who has not by a specified

date joined his own national Forces will become liable under the National Service Acts to be called up to the British Forces. I might mention in passing that, as the House will see in Clause 4, those resident in the Isle of Man also come under the operation of this scheme. Under this Bill an Order in Council may be made applying Clause 1, which is the essential operating Clause, to the nationals in Great Britain of Powers allied to His Majesty. The House will see that the Bill is an enabling Measure and will not in general come into force with regard to any particular Allied nationality until, in agreement with the Allied nationality concerned, an Order is made applying it to persons of that nationality. Men of the nationality concerned who are of British military age will then have two months, or a longer period if the Order in Council so provides, within which they may join their national Forces. It is, I think, clearly desirable that so far as possible Allied nationals should join their own national Forces, but if they do not do so, they will, at the end of the period, become liable to be called up to the British Forces. It is proposed then that they should normally be posted to the Pioneer Corps, except those who have certain specialist qualifications which can be best used in the Royal Air Force.
The Bill gives the Allied Governments the right to grant certificates to those of their own nationals whom they wish to be exempted from liability under this Bill. Also, the House will realise that a large proportion of the available Allied manpower in the country consists of technicians and highly skilled workers. The Ministry of Labour has, for the last two years, experienced the most willing co-operation from the Allied Governments over the question of the reservation of essential workers when they were calling up their men for their own national Forces. His Majesty's Government are confident that this co-operation will be continued when this Bill comes into force, and it is hoped that a definite understanding will be reached with the Allied Governments that men whom the Ministry of Labour and National Service consider essential to the war effort in their civilian occupation should be allowed to remain in that occupation. The proper procedure for carrying all this into effect will be announced at the appropriate time.
The House will realise that any of the Allied nationals who has not joined his own Forces by the specified date and therefore becomes liable to be called up under our National Service Act will enjoy all the rights and privileges given by that Act, including such things as questions relating to hardship, etc. Opportunity has also been taken in this Bill to clarify certain difficulties which have arisen out of the operation of the Allied Forces Act, 1940. There is, I understand, no definition of membership of an Allied Eorce in that Act, and therefore Sub-section (1) of Clause 5 has been inserted, and the House will see that the definition is:
For the purposes of the Allied Forces Act, 1940, a person shall be deemed to be a member of the naval, military or air forces of any such allied Power or foreign authority as is mentioned in Section one of that Act, if he has served in those forces on or after the date of the passing of that Act and has not been duly discharged therefrom, but a person who has not so served shall not be deemed to be a member of any such forces by reason of his having been called upon to serve therein.
We have also taken the opportunity of making it clear in Clause 5 (2), as the House will see, a person sentenced by an Allied Service tribunal to imprisonment may be detained in a British prison, notwithstanding that he has ceased to be a member of his national Force, whether by virtue of the sentence passed on him or otherwise.
The Bill has been in course of preparation for a considerable period and has been very fully discussed with the Powers concerned. The many difficulties which appeared in the course of those discussions have been very carefully dealt with, and His Majesty's Government hope that the Bill will work with the same smoothness and lack of friction which have characterised the working of other Acts which deal with this subject. In conclusion, I would say that that lack of friction has been but one of the many examples of the happy relationships that exist between the Government of this country and the Governments of those gallant Allies whom we are proud to see resident in our country until the day when the victory of the United Nations will enable them to return in honour to their native land.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: Has any attention been given, in the case of Norway, to the Act of 1922?

Mr. McCorquodale: I am afraid I do not know the Act to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Wilson: It relates to military service.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that during the past couple of years I have asked questions of the Government on a number of occasions in regard to the promotion of this matter, I am naturally gratified to find that they have been able at last to face successfully all the problems that were before them, and to present this Measure. I am sure it is right that legislation of this kind should be brought into force, particularly when we bear in mind that we have taken powers to deal with neutral citizens in this country. During the discussion of legislation on this matter not so many months ago, it was laid down that Swiss and Swedish nationals could be made to take part in the home defence of this country, A.R.P. work and measures of that kind. At a moment when British subjects are being compelled to serve in military service, it is only right that subjects of our Allies who are here should be placed in the same position.
This matter has been dealt with in an ingenious manner. There may be certain points that will have to be very carefully safeguarded, and I daresay that more information can be given to us on the point during the course of the Debate. I agree that the natural and proper thing for any Allied citizen is that he should serve in the Forces of his country. That would be the normal procedure, but there may be a small number of cases in which, for historical or racial reasons, the individuals may prefer to serve in the British Forces. In such cases, I believe that the Allied Governments concerned will take an understanding and sympathetic view and will have no objection. It is very important that it should be made clear that the choice will be a real choice. There is undoubtedly a fear, which may be entirely without foundation, that, during the period of two months, or whatever it may be, pressure of various kinds will be placed upon Allied citizens to join the Allied and not the British Services. One can imagine all sorts of ways in which it may take place. I am not suggesting that any of the Allied Governments are for a moment thinking of such a thing, but the fact that the fear exists is quite enough to make it


necessary that attention should be paid to it. There are questions of passports and of what will happen after the war, and all sorts of warnings that might be given as to what will happen to individuals if they choose the British Forces instead of the Allied Forces. This choice must be a free one, and it must be clear that no action will be taken against the citizens of any of our Allies because they chose to join the British Forces.
There is another class of person living in this country. These persons came here as refugees many years ago, having no sympathy with the country they left and very little knowledge of it, but they joined the Forces of an Ally under the impression that they were compelled to do so. They afterwards discovered that they were under no obligation. Under Regulations now being passed, they can be brought back compulsorily into that Allied Force. I suggest that it would not be right in such cases to leave these people in that position. We must pay attention to cases even though they may be numbered on the fingers of one hand.
I should like to know how far the Bill is intended to go. The Minister made reference to a limited number of Allied Governments; there are 28 Allied Governments altogether. So far as I understand the terms of the Bill, there is no reason why the Measure should not apply to the whole lot of them, each of them being:
a Power allied with His Majesty and who are in Great Britain at the time when the Order comes into operation.
I should like to know whether the Bill is intended to apply to Americans and whether any arrangements of a reciprocal kind are in operation between the two countries. I have raised the question of British subjects in America and the steps being taken to bring them into the British or the American Forces. I should like an opportunity to be taken in the course of the Debate to make clear what the reciprocal arrangements are. Nothing has been said about the Free French. Is it intended that they shall be brought in in any way, or are they, when they happen to be in this country, being allowed to do exactly what they like?
The question of nationality arises, and I should like the Minister to say who is to decide if there is a case of disputed nationality. Will it be a British court

or an Allied court? It is important that that should be laid down with absolute clarity. Not only are there people of the United Nations but a number of friendly aliens in this country, who would be very glad to render military service on our behalf. I have in mind many friendly Austrians who would be glad to serve, but I understand from the terms of the Bill that they would not be included. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to deal with these and other points raised in the Debate. I think the Measure in principle is an entirely sound one, and I hope that the machinery we are now setting up for international action by a number of Allies working together will be a permanent one after the war. I noted with interest the declaration made by Mr. Sumner Welles on behalf of the United States Government the other day, in which he used these words:
I believe that they will insist that the United Nations undertake the maintenance of an international police force in the years after the war to ensure freedom from fear to peace loving peoples until there is established that permanent system of general security promised by the Atlantic Charter.
I venture to think that this Measure will be a real step along that pathway.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of this Measure made what is to me the rather amazing statement, if I understood him aright, that the nationals of the country whose nationals over here probably exceed in number all the others put together are to be excluded from this Measure, and it seems to me that it is only fair that it should be explained to the House why the nationals of the Czechoslovak Government are not included. The hon. Gentleman said that negotiations were to be continued afterwards with a view to bringing those nationals into the purview of the arragements, but surely it would have been far better if those negotiations had been conducted before this Measure was introduced. I have no intention of opposing this Bill at its present stage, but it does seem in fairness to this House that an explanation should be given why the nationals of the Czechoslovak nation have not been included in this Measure.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of this Bill said that it was the


last link in a series of Acts and was designed to complete the chain. As such, we welcome it, but we welcome it particularly because the last link of the chain does not exactly reproduce the form of all the preceding links. In the preceding Measures there was not conceded a very important principle which is, we are thankful to see, conceded, by this Bill. It concedes the principle that there shall be, in all the persons liable to serve under this Bill, an absolutely free option as to whether they will serve in the Armed Forces of the Power claiming them as its nationals, or in our own Forces. I wish that principle had been recognised earlier. It is too late to repine about that, but we are glad that, at last, this principle, which is a very important one indeed, has been conceded and—as I understand it, this is what makes it especially welcome—has been conceded with the free agreement not only of those persons who have been concerned, and of those affected by the Bill but also of the provisional Governments of the Allied Powers, with one possible exception.
My hon. Friend will forgive me if I take a little time in calling his attention to various points so that the Committee stage may be shortened and simplified. The first point I would like to take is this: The Government ought to make perfectly certain that the option is not fettered by any kind of bribe, inducement, pressure or argument of any kind. One part of his speech seemed rather to limit the freedom of the option. He said something which is not, I am glad to say, to be found in the Bill. He said that if the nationals of any of the Powers concerned elected, as they have the right to do under the Bill, to join our Forces instead of the Forces of the Allied Government concerned, they would be employed in the Pioneer Corps. If you say to a man who is eager to take his full part in the struggle, which means as much to him as to anybody, "If you serve in the Armed Forces of the Power concerned, you shall serve freely and equally, with the same rights and the same obligations as everybody else, whereas if you elect to go into the British Army, we shall not allow you to fight, we shall use you only in the Pioneer Corps," that is not a free option.
It is unfair to the persons concerned, because they might wish to serve in our own Armed Forces rather than in those

of the Poles, or the Czechs or anybody else, but may yet say to themselves "I will not do it, I will not elect to go into the Armed Forces I prefer, because if I do I shall go with less rights, with less obligations and with less onerous duties. Indeed people may say of me that I have joined the British Forces, not in order to discharge an obligation but in order to escape one." If you fetter the option you are giving such a person under the Bill by machinery of that kind outside it, you are giving him a free choice with one hand and taking it away with the other. I most sincerely hope that the Government will reconsider that side of the question, and leave a man quite free to serve as a fighting soldier in our Armed Forces if he would rather do that than serve elsewhere.
The second point I would like to make is this. There is an interval of two months or more between the date on which liability to serve arises and the date on which a man is brought under our own National Service Acts, and I should not blame the Allied Governments very much if they used that interval of time to persuade people by every legitimate means to go into their Armed Forces instead of into ours, because I quite recognise that they have a natural and legitimate interest in increasing the numbers of their own Armed Forces. I hope, however, that the Government will take special care to see that any such persuasion shall really be legitimate, because I am bound to say that in the exercise of powers under the Allied Forces Act of last year the Governments concerned, or some of them, have frequently acted not in accordance with the terms of the Act. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General may or may not know—if he does not know I would advise him to consult the Foreign Office and the War Office—that some of the Governments concerned have misinterpreted this former Act entirely and have sought to apply powers under that Act to persons who were not subject to it at all. I hope that will not be repeated. Let them use all legitimate persuasion by inducement or anything of that kind, but let there no longer be an illegitimate exercise of authority in our name, on our soil, and with the assistance of our police force.
I would also like to clear up the point which has been raised about nationality.


There are in this country people who came here originally at very tender ages to escape from persecution. They came from Poland, Czechoslovakia and elsewhere, at a time when those States, as subsequently constituted, did not exist. They have lived here practically the whole of their lives. Not all of them have been naturalised. Naturalisation costs money, and not everybody has the means. But many of them have been here, except for their first few days, or weeks or months, virtually the whole of their lives, and regard themselves as citizens of this country. I am not sure what their nationality is under international law; I do not think anybody knows. I am perfectly certain that different States could compete for a number of them. A man might have, as many people have, dual nationality. Many others—I think this applies really to most of them—would be regarded by most people as, technically, Stateless. I think it extremely important that the powers under this Bill shall not be exercised by Governments against people on some narrow, technical ground.
I know personally one very tragic case. I have mentioned it before but it illustrates what may happen. It is the case of a man, who at the age of three was taken by his parents from Poland—there was no Polish State at the time—to Vienna where he was brought up. He knew no Polish at all, he had no Polish friends, he had no Polish connections of any sort or kind, and he had no desire for any. He lived in Vienna until his early twenties. It then happened that Hitler marched into Austria, and as part of his policy he removed from Austria thousands of people of non-Austrian origin—mainly Jews. He moved them across Austria and across Germany, intending to enforce their emigration into Poland. But the Polish Government said: "No, these people are not ours. They have never been our citizens; they are not now. We take no responsibility of any kind for them." I am not saying that they were wrong. I think that they were right, but they did take that attitude and these people were left, cast out of one State and refused admittance to the other. They spent the whole of a terrible winter without adequate food and clothing on the marches between Prussia

and Poland, with no one prepared to take any responsibility of any kind for them.
The man to whom I refer eventually escaped and came to this country, and was living here quite freely and happily until one day two Polish gendarmes accompanied by an English policeman arrived at his home and said, "You are liable to serve in our Forces because we have conscription in Poland and you are a Polish citizen," and with the assistance of our police he was forcibly taken into the Polish Army. He was tried, and sentenced, and was ultimately induced, or persuaded, voluntarily to join the Armed Forces of Poland. He knew no Polish; he was no use as a Polish soldier. He had previously applied, being very anxious to serve, to be admitted into our Army, but under the agreement we had with the Polish Government, we were unable to accept him without the consent of the Poles. There were other such cases, and I am citing this one now not because the injustice continues, because it does not. It has been ended, and I am glad to think that the Polish Government have put a stop to that practice, which at one time was frequent with them. I raise it now in order to show how difficult this nationality question is. Under this Bill such a man could be taken back into the Polish Army. The Bill itself provides that if the man has been formally discharged from the Polish Army, and is therefore not actually serving now, he would not be liable to be taken back into the Army under this Bill. But in a great many cases there has been no formal discharge.
I know cases—I do not intend to reveal them now as it would be dangerous until proper amendment has been made—in which men of the type I have been describing have been taken into one of the Allied Armies and have ultimately discovered that the particular Government concerned—it is not always the Poles—had acted in excess of their jurisdiction and have left. The Polish authorities, or whoever they might be, have not ventured to do anything about it, although they know the whereabouts and identity of the people and everything about them. But these people have not been formally discharged. That is one of the things which will have to be looked at very carefully in Committee. It would be in the highest degree unjust if men, because they had been, under duress, serving in


the Army of an Allied Power, should by reason of that illegal act, or by reason of some misunderstanding on one side or the other, now be deprived of the free option which the Bill gives to all those others who have never been in an Army at all. There is another respect in which the former powers were abused. In the Second Reading Debate on the Allied Forces Act the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General gave a clear undertaking to this House that the powers under that Act would not be retrospectively applied.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The hon. Member is not quite accurate. When I was dealing with the Free French I said, quite definitely, that so far as I could say, the Act could not be used for retrospective purposes. The hon. Member has not represented quite accurately what I actually said.

Mr. Silverman: I have not the actual words in front of me, and I do not propose to argue with my right hon. and learned Friend on them; but I am certain he would not dispute that the impression which he desired to create, and which he did create, in the House at that time was that if we gave the Allied Governments power to punish crimes under their laws, by their courts but on our soil, they should not use those powers in respect of crimes committed before the granting of such powers. That is the point about which he was asked, and I think that is a fair interpretation of what he said. I know a case, which I have communicated to my right hon. and learned Friend, of a man who was tried in this country for an offence alleged to have been committed in France 18 months before. There was no possibility of getting all the evidence that might have been available at the time of the alleged offence. As it was, there was only one witness to show that he had committed the offence, and that witness contradicted himself, while live witnesses testified that he did not commit the offence; yet the court convicted him. I am not questioning that conviction; that is not our business. What is our business is the fact that those powers were never intended to apply to alleged offences committed on foreign soil long before such legislation was contemplated at all. I hope that under this Bill there will be no such abuse of the powers as I

think has been proved in repeated instances under the other Act.
I would direct attention again to the definition of nationality. Nationality ought to be more clearly defined. It may be that we cannot have a new Nationality Act, but for the purposes of this Bill, persons deemed to be nationals of any of the Powers concerned should be specifically defined. On any definition of nationality, there must be in this country a large number of persons who are Stateless. They seem to be covered by none of this legislation. If they are Stateless, they will not be liable under our own Military Service Act or under the former Allied Forces Act or under this Act. That is a position that the House would not, I think, like to leave unremedied, and that the persons concerned would not like to leave unremedied, because most of them regard themselves, in all senses except the strictly technical sense, as persons having the rights, and therefore the obligations and duties, of British citizens. Have the Government considered what is to be done in those cases?
I have said already that not all, but many of them are Jews. The Government might give further consideration to the requests that have been made from time to time for the formation of a Jewish fighting force. Why are we passing this legislation? We could have done what we did in the last war. We could have made people who are not specifically enemy aliens, liable under our own law. But we thought it desirable in many instances not to do that. The Government have said, in defending legislation of this kind, "We are not going to deprive any European Government of its sovereign rights merely because, by acts of unprovoked aggression, Hitler has managed to remove them from their territory." It has been on that principle that we have departed from the practice of the last war, and have preserved certain sovereign rights of these Governments even on our soil. I do not want to say too much about this, but there are no people in Europe better entitled to protection of the kind I have indicated than the Jews. It is not as if we were in any doubt about national rights. We are committed, under the Palestine Mandate and in other ways, to the recognition of Jewish nationality. I see no reason why the Government should hesitate to allow those


people who desire to do so to fight together in their own forces, under their own flag. I recognise that my hon. Friend cannot deal with that matter today, but I hope that the Government have not closed their minds to the proposal, and that they will sympathetically consider it.
I hope that I have succeeded in indicating to the Government a number of safeguards which, when we come to the Committee stage, it would be well to introduce into this Measure. I repeat that we welcome the Measure, that we are glad that agreement has been reached, and especially that free option to serve in our Forces has been conceded. We hope that that option will be freely applied. With those suggestions, we on these Benches will be glad to accept the Bill.

Mr. Pritt: I, too, welcome this very satisfactory Bill. I imagine from the time that has elapsed and from other things I know, that a good deal of trouble has been taken to make it as satisfactory as it is. I would mention only one point, to which I hope the Government will give consideration, in order to save time in Committee. That is the question raised in Clause 5 (1). I have had a great many allegations, and a certain amount of proof, that in a number of cases, concerning at least two nationalities, people have, in fact, without any right under English law, been got into the Armed Forces of the Allies, sometimes by fraudulent representations as to their rights and duties, sometimes by bullying, and sometimes by more legitimate persuasion. Then these people having learned that they are not liable to serve, and not liking the conditions of service—and there may be many other causes for that than cowardice—have walked out. If this Bill is to authorise a man being put back lawfully into the Armed Forces of an Allied Power, simply and solely because he was once illegitimately and improperly clad in their uniform and taught to form fours or to form threes, as the case may be, it is not quite right. It can be put right, and I hope to put down an Amendment about it. I trust the Government will give some consideration to that point in advance if they have not already done so.

Major Milner: I hope that the Government will pay attention

to the points which have been raised by my hon. Friends on this bench. I thought of raising some of those points myself as they are extremely important. Many of us, while appreciating the difficult nature of the situation do not feel happy about it. There has been and there still is a not altogether satisfactory treatment of these questions. Of that there can be no doubt. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look into these points and will be able, at a later stage, to give some assurance on the matters raised by my hon. Friends. I would impress upon the Government that they should give us an assurance either to-day or in the future, that no pressure will be exercised by the Allied Governments to compel their nationals to join their Armed Forces in the interval between the coming into force of the Bill and the option which will arise, when, as I understand it, such nationals become automatically liable, or at any rate eligible, to join the British Forces
I desire to ask this question. Unfortunately I was not present during the whole of the speech of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I apologise to him if he has already dealt fully with the question, but I understand he said that hardship tribunals will apply. May we be assured that in those instances where Allied nationals become liable under the National Service Acts either by reason of their obligation at the appropriate time or by volunteering, they will have all the advantages which British subjects are afforded, not only with regard to hardship tribunals but with regard to all the procedure; that they will come before our tribunals and not tribunals set up by the Allies, and that in all senses they will have the same opportunities as British subjects? I press that point because there are many Allied nationals now engaged in extremely important national work and this is not always recognised by their own Governments but would very likely be recognised by our own Government Departments. Therefore, it is essential in these cases that our own tribunals should have the opportunity of saying how far they are or are not necessary to the national effort in the work they are doing, or alternatively, whether they would or would not be better employed in the British Forces. I gather from the hon. Gentleman that they will have all the opportunities which are now offered to British subjects.

Miss Rathbone: Most of the points about which some of us have been anxious have already been touched upon, and I desire only to make quite sure that we get from whoever replies on this Debate or during the Committee stage very definite assurances. The most serious point is the question of nationality. An hon. Member opposite stated that he understood the Bill was not going to apply to Czechoslovakians. I would like to know whether that is really the case? It is not clear from the Bill to which nationals it refers. It is described as a Bill:
To make provision as to the liability to war service of the nationals of Allied Powers.
Does that mean all Allied Powers?

Mr. McCorquodale: I hope that I dealt with that point clearly in my speech in moving the Second Reading when I said to the House that:
the Bill is an enabling Measure and will not, in general, come into force with regard to any particular allied nationality until, in agreement with the Allied nationality concerned, an Order is made applying it to persons of that nationality.

Miss Rathbone: I see that it is to be by Order in Council. I am sorry I missed the first two or three minutes of the speech of the hon. Member. The really difficult point arises where there is a question of disputed nationality. Several Members have called attention to the fact that during the last year a considerable number of men have been, I will not say coerced or bullied exactly, but inveigled by very strong pressure, even by threats, into joining one or other of these Allied Armies and it is extremely questionable whether they are really members of the particular nationalities concerned.
I have one case with regard to which I have been in correspondence with the Foreign Office. Threats and a great deal of pressure were brought to bear on the man who was told he would be arrested and that he was legally bound to join. He had never been to Poland in his life except for a few weeks when he was driven over the frontier. He could not speak any Polish and had no wish to join the Polish army, though he would have liked to have joined the British Army. This man is actually in the Polish Forces. When I raised the question I was told that he had joined the Polish Forces and

that if he doubted whether he was a Pole he had his remedy at law. I would like to know what is his remedy at law? What is actually going to be the position, first of a man in the Forces who disputes whether he is a Pole or Czech, and secondly of a man who is not in the Forces but is equally uncertain and wants the matter cleared up? If a man is not in the Forces, I suppose he is now to have the option. It is a great relief, I am sure, to all who are interested in the position of these people that there is to be an option.
If there is a disputed question of nationality and the man is in such a position that he would be liable to penalties under the Act if he were a Pole or Czech, what is he to do about it? What court is to decide the nationality to which he actually belongs? I am not a lawyer and I do not envy lawyers if they have to decide these matters. There are many cases where it is extremely difficult to discover a man's nationality. Many of them are Stateless. They were, perhaps, born in Berlin of parents who came out of Poland at a time the bit of Poland to which they belonged was a part of Austro-Hungary. On what depends their nationality? There are cases in which men have had passports obtained for them by relatives as the only means of getting out of Germany. Perhaps some have passports showing them to be of two or three different nationalities. Are they to be considered Poles or Czechs or whatever it may be on the ground that they managed to "wangle" a Polish or a Czech passport? What is to be the deciding tribunal? I hope that that will be made quite clear.
As to the option of joining the British Forces, which we are all so delighted to see is to be part of the Bill, will it be made, as one or two hon. Members have suggested, crystal clear that they have such an option and that a man will not be subject to any kind of penalties or any, inferiority stigma if he proposes to hold out on a chance of joining the British Forces? If it is to be a real option it is very important that it should be made clear that the man will have a fair chance of joining a combatant unit if he so desires. Some no doubt prefer to join the Pioneer Corps and naturally cannot expect that there will be any promise given beforehand, as in the case of the British


soldiers, that they can join whatever Force they like. But it ought to be clear that they are not to be limited mainly to the Pioneer Corps and will have a free choice. They ought to be considered for the Royal Air Force, the Navy or the unit of the British Army which they want to join. It has been a great humiliation to many of those who are anti-Nazis in every possible sense, and who are longing to take vengeance for their dead countrymen and women, to find that they have no option but to be put into a unit where they can do nothing except dig and sweep all day long.
May I say a word about the Czechoslovakian Forces? I suppose it is natural that there is a special difficulty where Czechoslovakia is concerned and perhaps more so in connection with the Sudeten-German part of Czechoslovakia—I do not know—but I do know that there is no group of refugees in this country more passionately desirous of victory for the Allied cause than the Sudeten-Germans. There is no group which realises more the necessity for close co-operation between themselves and other parts of Czechoslovakia, but they feel some fear as to what may be the future of their part of Bohemia after the war, and they want to be quite sure that no political results that would in any way place them in a less favourable position than Slovakians will follow. That is possibly why they are hanging back to a certain extent over questions raised in this Bill, although I believe that most of them very warmly welcome it.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: In Clause 1 of this Bill it states that the National Service Acts, 1939 and 1941, will be operative, but there were two sentences used by the Parliamentary Secretary which gave the impression that that was not really intended. He said that the only ground for exemption would be that these people were doing essential work and that exemption would be granted only when their Government wished to have these people exempted. That is not in accordance with the Acts which we have in operation in this country. The provisions of a Norwegian Act of 1922 provide for dealing both in peace and war with those who are described as "refractaires from motives

of conscience." Incidentally, the Norwegians who have been under conscription for a long time, and who have made changes, found a better term than "conscientious objection." Conscientious objection means nothing to the vast majority of the people of this country. When it is talked about as the Ministry of Labour talk about it, it reminds me of the man who came to me to make an objection to the vaccination of his child. He declared that he had a conscientious objection to it on the ground that it would be prejudicial to the health of his child and said as he walked away, "You know, this is my second child. My first child was vaccinated and has had all the ailments to which a child can be subjected. Now I will see how this one gets on without it."
This same idea is held by the vast majority of the people of this country, not excepting Members of this House, as to what is conscientious objection. The use of the word "refractaires" or some other such expression is very much more appropriate. In the Norwegian Act conscience is more strictly interpreted. It states that alternative service shall have no connection with military institutions or operations. During the years that conscription has been in operation the Norwegians have learned lessons from it. The Act also states that during alternative service persons serving have the right to maintenance and clothing and to whatever is provided for the soldier. Their families have the right to what is provided for the families of soldiers. There is very little of that kind in this country. In a statement of the motives of the law the Governmental Commission is of the opinion that the execution of the law should be effected in such wise as to avoid the danger of alternative service taking the character of penal service. That is not in operation in this country. You have tribunals in all parts of the country using most objectionable terms in regard to some of these people. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but in a few days I will let him have a long list. The Act goes on to state:
or that opinion should mistake it for something other than a compensatory employment in lieu of military service.
That views the whole thing in a different light, and I am not surprised to hear that the Government knew nothing of Norweigian law. If they had studied them,


our laws would be on a much more satisfactory basis.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I rise to express a welcome to this Bill, because I am somewhat in doubt as to the position of friendly aliens who are engaged for the time being on non-essential work, useless jobs such as waiting on other people, and who can be found in various forms of employment covered by the union with which I have been associated for many years. I do not know exactly what is meant by the Bill when it
makes provision as to the liability to war service.
The Minister of Labour has power to direct all British subjects covered by the Act to some kind of employment under the Essential Work Order, but in the case of friendly aliens, who are dealt with under this Bill as Allied nationals, it appears to me that there are many of them whose services could be better utilised in the war effort if they were directed, under the Essential Work Order, to jobs for which they are well suited. I do not know whether the Ministry of Labour have looked at the matter from that angle. I shall not argue legal points, but put the matter from the point of view of the man-in-the-street. There are many people who know that friends of theirs who were waiters, or engaged in the distributive trades, went into the Armed Forces many months ago, by reason of the National Service Act, but these people find that there are friendly aliens who are engaged in the same kind of work and will be engaged in it for the duration of the war unless the matter is dealt with under this Bill. I want to ask the Minister whether the Bill will deal with that matter. Will it comb out the men in these various occupations and bring them into more beneficial and useful occupations? Whether a man be a Dutchman, a Greek, or a Pole, I cannot se that there would be anything wrong in saying to him, "Here is your opportunity; if you have not volunteered, you have got to play the game and do the same kind of thing as we do."

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend will appreciate what was the position without this Bill. Many of these people, whose great anxiety has been to serve, have not been able to do so, since when they applied at the employment exchanges for work, or applied to join the Army, they

were told, "You are a Pole, or a Czech, and we have an agreement with your provisional Government, and unless they release you, we cannot employ you." If the persons concerned were people who would never apply to those States, they were left without an opportunity to serve.

Mr. Walkden: I appreciate the hon. Member's point of view, and probably the Bill will help in that matter. At the same time, the Ministry of Labour have not so far dealt with these people as we feel they ought to have been dealt with. I imagine that within two miles of the House there must be at least 1,000 people whose services could be better utilised. Only a few weeks ago a Czech came to me and told me that he had tried three times to get into a certain kind of job in the Croydon area, but was turned down because he was a Czech, and some kind of reference was made to him that may have appeared unpleasant. The Ministry of Labour would not give him a chance. I hope that not only will all these men be given a chance, but that there will be an effective comb-out, and that we shall not see in future, in the West End of London and in various towns and cities, in shops and catering establishments, people doing unnecessary jobs when they could be playing their part in industry.

Mr. Sorensen: I should like to add my thanks for the optional Clause in the Bill, which certainly will gratify quite a number of foreign nationals who have the utmost sympathy with our country and who happen to be exiled from their own lands. I know of a case of a young man who tried, in the early part of the war, to join His Majesty's Forces. He spoke perfect English, although he had come from another country only about two years previously; but when it was discovered that he was the national of another State, he was told that he could not serve in the British Army. He has had, of course, the opportunity of serving in the Forces in this country of that Friendly Power, but he says that he would be prepared to go to prison for the rest of his days rather than serve in the army of the nation to which technically he belongs. I presume that this Bill will apply to such a person, and that he will be able, if he so desires, to be accepted for the British Army.
I would like here to make a suggestion for the consideration of the Minister. We


are all supposed to know the law. That is a fiction rather than a fact. I presume that Allied nationals will be presumed to know the law in respect of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, and I suppose that most of them will know about it, but it does not follow that all of them will. Therefore, I want to ask whether it would be possible to see that those Allied nationals are informed that they can opt out of their responsibility to their national Forces and join the British Forces? For instance, it might well be laid down that if and when they are called for service in their national Forces, they shall be informed, before actually signing on, that they can, if they wish, serve in the British Forces. It may be that a small Amendment of that sort could be incorporated in the Bill at a later stage. It would thus be guaranteed that this power of option would be brought to the notice of all those to whom it applies.
I want to express the hope of large numbers of Austrians in this country, who are intensely hostile to the Nazi regime and who have shown in more ways than one their complete friendliness towards this country, that they may at some time be brought within the scope of the Bill. I do not suppose that can be done now, but I mention it because I am in touch with large numbers of Austrians, and they are most anxious for this opportunity to be given to them. Finally, I want to express the fervent hope that no legal advantage, privilege or opportunity granted to British nationals will be denied to the nationals of other countries serving in this country. For instance, I hope that the privilege, if it be a privilege, of going before tribunals by men who conscientiously object to combatant service, or any form of war work, will be open also to, nationals of other countries who are temporarily resident here. I know it can be argued that technically that is so, but perhaps that too might be embodied in my suggestion, that some definite form of notification shall be conveyed to the nationals sometime before they are to be called up.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: A number of Britishers and members of the Austrian and Czechoslovakian communities, and people from other countries who are now our Allies, served with the International Brigade in Spain.

They were accomplished soldiers and endured great hardships. Since the British contingent returned, a number of them have been rejected from the British Army because of their political tendencies—belonging to the Communist party. I should like to know whether any of these people who served in Spain and are now our Allies, and who tend to be of a Communist political outlook, will be exempt and barred from participation in the war effort, as the Communists are to-day.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I am rather intrigued with the provisions of this Bill, and am very pleased to see two eminent lawyers sitting on the Government Front Bench, who, perhaps, will be able to reply to the few pertinent questions I wish to ask. The House of Commons is asked to-day to give power to the British Government to conscript aliens. I should like to know whether such a thing has ever happened before in this country, or indeed in any other civilised country with which the right hon. and learned Gentlemen are familiar. I know it is very unpopular to strike a note like this, but I should like to know what the British Government would think if any foreign Government in Europe or elsewhere conscripted British subjects for its Fighting Forces. I understand—I cannot vouch for it with accuracy—that when an alien voluntarily joins the American Army, or at present is conscripted into the Fighting Forces—by the Government at Washington—then that alien automatically becomes an American subject.
All of us, I think, have dealt with a number of tragic cases which will be covered by this Bill. The House knows that I take an interest in this problem purely from a humanitarian point of view, and I will give one case with which I have had to deal. It is the case of a boy born in Leningrad whose parents of Polish nationality opted their child as a Polish national. That boy is now a young man of military age, living in this country, but he has never been to Poland. He knows nothing about Poland, and the Polish Government here wanted to conscript him. If the House does not mind my saying so, after I paid a visit to Poland under the Pilsudski regime and seeing what happened to the minorities there I think he was perfectly right as a Jew in not wishing to join the Polish Army. Strange as it might seem,


I have done my best to provide him with an opportunity to join the British Army, but the Polish Government would not allow him to do so.
My second point is this: When aliens are conscripted into the British Forces will that affect them favourably in securing British nationality later on? That is fundamental. The more of these cases with which I have had to deal the more it has impressed upon my mind that a human being without any nationality at all might just as well commit suicide. He is in a hopeless position. A Stateless person is a tragedy in the present world. The party to which I belong have agreed to support this Measure, and I have ventured to make these few points on my personal initiative.

The Attorney-General: The Bill has, on the whole, been welcomed. Points have been made, some of which deal with matters of detail—some dealt more with administration than with the terms of the Bill—which, no doubt, will be considered. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who opened this Debate, is quite right in saying that he has been the most insistent Member in demanding that Allied States on our soil should be given powers to conscript their nationals. He has waited about two years for this Bill, but, unfortunately, he has not been able to wait for the end of the Debate—he has waited so long that we may well excuse him for this. He always seems to me to ride two horses on this matter. No one pays greater tributes to the Allied Governments than he, but, on the other hand, he sometimes asks the Government to assume that these Allied Governments do undesirable things.
A good deal was said about the possibility of pressure, and some reference was made to actions which hon. Members suggested were not quite as they should be. The position of the Allied Governments on our soil, who are fighting with us in this struggle, is, no doubt, very unusual. This Bill does not so much give them power, but says what consequences will happen if certain steps are not taken. It is, of course, right and proper that everything should be done in due order, or, to employ a word which has already been used, "legitimately." It was suggested, although this arises under the Act rather than under this Measure, that some of these friendly aliens do not understand

their rights, and I agree it is important that they and everyone should understand what are their rights.

Mr. Davidson: A lot of British subjects do not understand their rights.

The Attorney-General: Certainly, but the suggestion here is that it may be more difficult. I think the Debate and the publicity given to one or two cases in the courts have done a great deal to help these Allied communities, who are mostly in touch with each other, to understand their rights as they exist here. But, having said that, it is also right to say that, after all, these Allied Governments are dealing with their own nationals. It is true that we are here to see that things are not done which are wrong on British soil, but it is also fair to remember that they are dealing with their own nationals.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) asked if it had ever been done before. I believe it has. I understand that we did it in 1917, and the United States are doing it to-day, that is to say, they are taking power to conscript people within their jurisdiction other than their own nationals. But the real answer that I would make to the hon. Member is not based on either of those facts, which I believe to be true, but on how the Bill is going to be worked. My hon. Friend explained that it will only be applied to a particular Allied Government and its nationals by agreement with that Government. If the United States Government by agreement with us take power to conscript our nationals in America and we take power to conscript American nationals here, I do not see how any such agreement would be derogatory to either Power, or that there would be anything novel or strange about it. When the hon. Member realises that this will only be applied by agreement, I think that removes the implications of that part of his speech. As far as America is concerned, the Bill could be applied, but I understand discussions are going on. It is not the intention to apply the Bill to any of our Allies, including any of the 28 United Nations, except by agreement with them.

Mr. Mander: What about the Free French?

The Attorney -General: It is obvious that in the present circumstances of French citizenship and nationality the Act could not possibly be applied there.

Mr. Davidson: Can a French citizen exercise any preference?

The Attorney-General: The Bill will not be applied in the case of the Free French for reasons which I think will be obvious. Another main point that has been raised is the question of nationality. Every lawyer is familiar with the class of case of which the hon. Lady spoke. A child is born of Polish parents in Leningrad and an option is exercised. In some cases territory may have been transferred. There are obviously many difficult cases, but one is apt to exaggerate their number. Nor do I think there is any particular reason to suppose that the Bill is likely to bring a crop of them before the courts. The only way a case could come before the courts is this: Suppose the Polish, Dutch or Norwegian Government has asked one of its nationals to join its Forces and he has declined. The Bill is passed, and the man reads about it in the papers. The only way in which the nationality question can arise is if he says he is not Norwegian and the Norwegian and British Governments say he is. Of course, if the man accepts the Allied nationality, the Act is applied, and no question arises. He either joins the Force or he is called up. The nationality question can only arise if a man says he is not a national of one or other of these Allied Governments to whom the Act has been applied and they and we say he is. [Interruption.] If they say he is, they cannot make him join. He simply sits tight. When the two months have elapsed legal proceedings can only be taken if the British Government say, "You not having joined, and being in our view a Norwegian, we treat you as liable under our National Service Act." Therefore I do not think we are likely to have very many cases. In the case put of a man who says he is not of Norwegian but of Swedish nationality, I should have thought that the British Government would not take the trouble to contest a complicated nationality case for the sake of one individual. I do not think double nationality cases will present a great deal of trouble. If one of a man's double nationalities is British, and he retains it, of course he comes under our National Service Act.

Miss Rathbone: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet dealt with

the point that I raised of a man who has actually joined an Allied Army because he thought they had the right to conscript him, though they had not. Now he says, "I do not belong to this nationality." What is he to do about it? Can he get out of the Army by proving that he is not a Czech or a Pole?

The Attorney-General: That has nothing to do with this Bill. If the man has joined the Force and undertaken the obligation, the Bill does not enable him to get out of it, nor do I see how it could deal with the problem. The matter could only be taken up with the Allied Government.

Mr. Silverman: I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is looking at this lukewarmly. If he will consult the War Office or the Foreign Office, he may be shown a dossier of a number of specific cases which I myself furnished, after investigation, in which people who denied that they belonged to these Forces at all were arrested, detained and handed over to the custody of those Forces and who, under pressure of that kind, ultimately, in that way, consented to join, and who were then subsequently allowed to go without being formally discharged from the Forces because, on examination, the provisional Government concerned recognised that they had got them in that way. They will still be liable to be handed back under the Bill.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Lady was raising her point under Clause 5 (1), I apologise for what I said. If she was raising the general point as to whether these people can be released, my hon. Friend's intervention rather supports what I said, that this is a matter for representations through the Foreign Office. The point was raised on Clause 5 (1) that there might be people whom everybody regarded as better out of an Allied Force than in it and who might not have been duly discharged, and that, therefore, it would be desirable that their position should be cleared up. We will certainly look into that point, which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt).
My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Wilson) gave an interesting account of the Norwegian provisions for conscientious objectors. That, again,


brings out the two sides of this problem, because so far as the Norwegian Government are concerned this Bill does not and cannot affect Norwegian law. If in any document that they send out to their nationals or any approaches they may make to them they provide for the operation here of any machinery for dealing with conscientious objectors—which would, of course, be informal because it could not be a court—it would be a matter for them. This, however, does not empower the Norwegian Government to conscript in the full sense. That is why it is welcomed so much by some of my hon. Friends who have spoken in the Debate. All it says to the potential Norwegian conscientious objector is, "If you do not join the Norwegian Forces, you will become liable to the British National Service Act"; and all the machinery of that Act for conscientious objectors will apply to him. The hon. Gentleman thought the Norwegian methods were better. We cannot go into that now. We do our best in this country and think that on the whole we do better than other countries, but we cannot on this Bill consider whether our general scheme for conscientious objectors might be improved. All that it is relevant to point out now is that it will apply in all its details to those aliens who come under the National Service Act by reason of their not having joined a Force within the two months.

Mr. Wilson: Will such a conscientious objector come under the ordinary tribunal or the Norwegian tribunal?

The Attorney-General: We have nothing to do with the Norwegian tribunals. If a Norwegian conscientious objector does not join the Norwegian Forces because ex hypothesi he does not like joining Forces, then under this Bill, two months having elapsed, he comes under our National Service Act. He is told to register, he then says he is a conscientious objector, and he will have the whole of the advantages of our machinery for establishing that fact, and, if it is established, of exemption and so on.

Mr. Sorenaen: Will the Attorney-General say a word regarding the suggestion that there might be some failure to enable the power of option to be exercised before a man is actually called up.

The Attorney-General: That surely must be left to the Allied Governments. We are dealing with Governments which are dealing with their own citizens. They are in difficulties and that is why they are here, and it is the more reason why we should constantly remember that they are sovereign States. I wonder what we should think if some other country tried to say how we should communicate with our citizens. This must be a matter that should be left to them.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Attorney-General answer my point with regard to any political barrier? I asked about men who had fought for democracy in other Forces and left their own countries because they did not approve very heartily of their particular forms of government, which countries are now Allies of ours. Will any political representations from those countries be entertained by us with regard to the entry of these men into our Army?

The Attorney-General: That really seems to me to be a very hypothetical question. As I understand it, the suggestion is that there may be some people in this country who fought in the International Brigade in Spain who are, say, Poles, Czechs or Dutchmen. They do not join their own national Forces, and what will be their position when this Bill becomes an Act? If they do not join those Forces within two months, they will come under our Forces. What view will be taken of them in our Forces is hypothetical. Anyone who comes under our umbrella in this Bill will be scrutinised in the ordinary way. Some people think that the way in which the scrutinising is done is not the way in which they would do it, but these men will be dealt with in the same way as any other men who join the Forces.

Mr. Davidson: May we have an assurance that their participation in the Spanish War or their political activities of the past will be no barrier?

The Attorney-General: I certainly will not give any such assurance, because it is irrelevant to the subject with which I am dealing.

Mr. Silverman: Would the Attorney-General like to say a word about the only point in the discussion on which he has not touched? I think I know why, but


I should like him to deal with it. The suggestion was made by the
Parliamentary Secretary who moved the Second Reading that people who elected to join our Forces instead of a foreign Force would be employed in the Pioneer Corps. It was suggested that that was unfair and interfered with their freedom of option.

The Attorney-General: What my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary stated is the position. There have been very long and difficult negotiations on this matter with the Allied Governments. It is our idea that those who do not join their own Forces will be put into the Pioneer Corps unless they have special qualifications for the Air Force.

Miss Rathbone: Is that the only exception? Suppose they have special qualifications for some other military unit?

The Attorney-General: That is the general basis of the scheme. The Pioneer Corps is a combatant body, and many foreigners have served in it with great gallantry and distinction. It is a mistake to suggest that it is a non-combatant branch of the Service. It is an honourable branch in which gallant service has been and can be given. That is the general basis of the way in which it is intended to work the scheme.

Colonel Arthur Evans: I hope most sincerely that my right hon. and learned Friend will not give way on this important point, because it concerns a very practical problem which will arise if the men choose of their own accord to serve in the British Army rather than in the national units of their own countries. Some of the men concerned are foreign-speaking and not all British regiments are in a position to deal with foreign-speaking recruits, but the Pioneer Corps, which had a splendid record in France, has special alien companies. These alien companies have British commanding officers, but in certain instances commissions are given to foreign nationals in those particular companies. Half of their non-commissioned officers are of British origin and half are of foreign origin. Men in the Pioneer Corps are employed on all kinds of duties. As my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, they are employed on combatant duties in the line and on highly skilled work for which they are particularly Suited, besides doing

ordinary labouring duties when no other work can be found for them. It would be most unfortunate if the impression went out to the country that some stigma would be attached to those men by their being posted to the Pioneer Corps which is rendering such loyal service. Not only is it an honour that they should have the privilege of serving with that Corps but they will be much happier because of the special facilities which are provided for them in that Corps.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): Dr. Peters.

Miss Rathbone: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether he is aware that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I called Dr. Peters.

Miss Rathbone: I was only asking a question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady has already made one speech and is not allowed to make two.

Dr. Peters: I myself was only going to ask a question. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Minister of National Service will have powers of direction in reference to these particular people?

Mr. McCorquodale: We have complete powers of direction.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

ALLIED POWERS (WAR SERVICE) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the liability to war service of the nationals of allied Powers it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister, of Labour and National Service, a Secretary of State or any other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act."


(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. McCorquodale.].

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939.

COAL (CHARGES) ORDER, 1942.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move,
That the Coal (Charges) Order, 1942, dated 3rd June, 1942, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 9th June, be approved.
I do not think there is any need for me to say a great deal respecting this Order, except that it provides for a levy of 7d. per ton on coal which is to be paid to a Coal Charges account and to be used under arrangements made by my Ministry and approved by the Treasury. The new levy
of 7d. replaces two other levies totalling the same amount hitherto levied by the Central Council of the Mining Industry, the first being a war emergency levy concerned with payments to colliery undertakings for particular purposes and the other to be used for purposes connected with the application of the Essential Work Order.

Mr. James Griffiths: I believe this is the first speech which my right hon. and gallant Friend has made since he became Minister of Fuel and Power. I am afraid that I cannot hold out the hope that the speeches he will have to make in future will be of such short duration as on this occasion, but I want to take the opportunity to wish him the good luck which he will need in the new office which he has undertaken. I do that all the more warmly because he represents a neighbouring county to my own. It is not very well known that the constituency which my right hon. and gallant Friend represents, and which is generally thought of as containing the beautiful golden sands of Tenby, also contains some of the oldest coal mines in this country, coal mines which produce the best anthracite coal in the world. At one time I was miners' agent and represented the men there in the tussles which went on. I also want to offer my best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), who has become Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry.
There are one or two things in the Order which look innocent and may be innocent, because I believe the Minister's intentions are good, on which I should like some information. This Order replaces two other Orders which have been passed at different times. The first was passed in May or June, 1940, and was the Order under which 6d. per ton was levied on all coal supplied to be used for particular purposes. The other Order, made about a year later, imposed a levy of 1d. per ton to be used for purposes connected with the application of the Essential Work Order to the industry.
Until now these levies have been collected and administered by the industry itself through the Central Councils that were set up under a previous Act of Parliament. I should like to ask, first, whether the administration of the new levy is transferred from the industry to the new Ministry. If so, how does the Minister propose to administer it? Is it to be done through the new National Coal Board? I presume that applications for help will once more come forward and I want to ask who will deal with them. A second point is that in paragraph 6 of the Order it is stated that the money paid to the State account shall be used for any purpose connected with the production or marketing of coal. The first Order was used to meet particular circumstances which arose at the time, and I remember them well. After the fall of France and the entry of Italy into the war the coal export trade of the country suffered severely and large numbers of collieries closed down. A large number of others also had to work short time because of circumstances connected with enemy air attacks on the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) was responsible for bringing that Order forward and securing the assent of the House to it, and I would pay tribute to the foresight which lay behind that first Order and pay tribute also to the work which he did in the Department which he recently left. What he did by that levy was to secure that a large number of pits which had to be closed at that time were kept in such a condition that they could be re-opened at a moment's notice. That was to render this nation a very great service indeed. Grave as are the problems with, which we are now confronted in the mining industry, the difficulties of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in


his new Ministry would have been infinitely graver but for the fact that that Order kept in condition and ready to be re-opened at a moment's notice a large number of collieries in this country. If we can get the man-power, the pits and everything else are there, thanks to the foresight shown by my hon. Friend.
Is it proposed to administer the 7d. levy still for those two purposes? In future, will the distribution of the levy be confined to pits that can show that they need assistance, owing to loss of trade following the fall in exports or because of short-time working or difficulties of transport, or are other purposes to be brought in? Instead of the levy being used first of all to meet those circumstances and secondly to equalise the charge in relation to the guaranteed week, are other purposes to be brought in? I believe we all agree with the principle, which I and my colleagues have enunciated for a very long time, that the uneven burdens which fall upon the industry should be equalised. It is the same principle which the Miners' Federation have urged, in essence, for 20 years. One of the misfortunes of the industry is that the principle of pooling was not adopted. I hope that hon. Members who support this Motion will remember what they are supporting in principle, which is that the different circumstances of the various minefields and coalmines should be equalised out of this pool.
I hope that the Minister will develop this idea of pooling the resources of the industry, in order to equalise the charges throughout the whole of the industry. 1s it proposed that this 7d. levy shall now be used for other purposes, and, if so, what? That is an important question. The indication in the Order that the Ministry will now consider for what purpose the levy is now being used follows immediately the publication of the coal plan, its adoption by the House and operation by the Government. It has occurred to me and to other hon. Members that the taking-over of the administration of the levy is connected with the other purposes that may be envisaged in the coal plan. I want the Minister to reply to this question. There are several proposals in the White Paper which are of very great interest. There is the proposal to develop a medical service in the industry. When I saw it first I wondered

whether it was proposed to use the money or part of it, or the surplus—I believe there is a surplus—for this purpose. I shall not comment upon whether it is desirable but am only asking a question. There are other things envisaged and mentioned in the plan, and I would ask the Minister whether it is proposed to include them.
I still hear of pits being closed here and there. Last week I received a deputation representing men in a pit in my constituency, and, as it happens, the men live partly in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows the circumstances. They told me that the company had notified them that they were proposing, if consent could be secured, to close the mine. Who decides whether a pit shall be closed? I gather that the right to decide does not lie entirely with the owners, and this is very desirable in the circumstances. Does the Minister decide, or someone else? Does whoever decides go very fully into all the circumstances and weigh up whether, in the national interest, a particular pit shall be closed? I have already sent to the Parliamentary Secretary two considerations which ought to be very carefully weighed in the case which I have in mind. The first consideration is that if the pit is closed completely—and I know the area very well indeed, every inch of it—a self-contained unit of coal production will be rendered unworkable, perhaps for a generation. In a few weeks' time the coal of this country will pass into being the property of the nation. Will that consideration be given its due weight by the people who are responsible?
The second consideration is that the company proposes to transfer 800 men, of whom 600 are to go to other collieries and 200 are to remain behind. That kind of thing happens everywhere. It is in the national interest that we should do everything we can to prevent pits closing down and to keep existing pits at work. I should not be presumptuous enough to advise the Minister, but I hope that he will not be very impressed when people advise him that one solution of the coal problem may be found by concentration of production in a few pits. I hope he will not allow anybody to persuade him that if he transfers 300 or 400 men from one coalfield to another there will be an increase of output. He must not be persuaded to assume that the output of such


men will be that which existed among the men who had worked at that pit for generations. The 200 men to be left behind are the older men who cannot be transferred. They cannot find work in other industries because there are no other industries. The net result is the loss to the nation of 200 men's work at the present time. Cannot some of the levy of 7d. per ton be used to keep that pit open?
If I understand this Order correctly, the central levy may be used for new purposes. Therefore we support this continuation of the levy entirely. We welcome the proposal to take over the administration of the levy. We believe it will be better administered
by the Ministry than by the owners. We hope it will be maintained for the purposes that were described in the original Orders, but that there will be an extension of the principle of pooling after the war. I hope the Minister will be able to give us satisfactory answers on those questions. We hope that this is the beginning of the establishment of the principle of using the common resources of the industry to meet the unequal burdens that fall upon it, through circumstances outside its control, and we hope that the principle will not only be maintained but will be extended, because it is the only way by which the industry can be made efficient and happy.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Like my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, I should like to welcome the Minister, but, unlike him, I do not desire to congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the brevity of his speech. For the benefit of those of us who do not belong to the great mining fraternity, either on one side or the other, I could have wished him to be more explanatory when he moved this Order. Therefore, as one of the ordinary members of the public who do not belong to either of the two great organisations, the mine-owners and the Miners' Federation, but as one representing the people who pay for the coal and burn it, I should like to ask one or two questions. I agree with ray hon. Friend that nothing should be done by any Member of the House of Commons or any member of the community which would in any way hinder the benefits which may accrue to the mining fraternity from this Order. I know from my own experience the great difficulties through which the miners have

gone, their very great poverty and their depressed conditions, and, despite the strong representation they have had in this House on both sides, their comparative failure during many years to gain a decent standard of life. Therefore, any charge or subsidy which goes into a pool to benefit the miners always obtains ready support from the majority of this House.
In order that I may be able to explain to my constituents, who have also suffered from the miners' difficulties, I would have liked to know how much it is expected to obtain from this particular levy. Will the Minister be perfectly frank about this? Does he consider that the amount obtained will be sufficient materially to benefit the mining fraternity of this country? Or does he contemplate an increase in the future, and, if so, will he tell us, and let the consumers of this country know exactly what position they are in, in order that between the two conflicting parties we may be able to form an opinion? Will he guarantee that none of this money will be used to ease the position of the mineowners with regard to the miners' wages? I would like an answer to these two particular questions before I shall be satisfied that this Order really carries out the task for which it is designed.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I wish to raise only one single point with my right hon. and gallant Friend, and at the same time may I congratulate him on the brevity of his speech? I would have preferred that some of the observations made to the House by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) had been made by my right hon. and gallant Friend. For example, I was not aware that this only represents what is already in existence, and that the levy of 7d. was in operation before the Order was introduced on 2nd June. Such being the case, this Order should not affect the price of coal one iota. I should like to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend, recognising his experience at the Ministry of Food with maximum price orders, whether he will give us now in presenting this Order to the House some kind of undertaking that at a very early date we shall have a maximum price Order for the different varieties of coal? I ask this, because I am very sorry indeed for the plight of some people who have had to buy coal and coalite in small bags or parcels during the past weeks.
They cannot help having to go to the greengrocer, who cannot get green vegetables, but who can at least get bags of coalite and small bags of coal to sell. The greengrocer finds that it is more profitable to sell fuel, now that the 6d. bags which he used to buy have advanced in price even up to 1s. for 14 lbs. of coalite. I do not know whether there is any way of controlling that. This Order deals with the owners and with the industry, but it does not deal with the person who sells the coal to the consumer. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give us an assurance that before winter and the difficulties associated with winter come upon us, a maximum price Order similar to those which he introduced at the Ministry of Food will be put into operation? If he does not introduce something with all speed, we shall find that little bags of coal will be costing as much in London as a hundredweight of coal in Lancashire, Yorkshire or Durham. I feel that something can be done. The housewives and consumers have a right to complain against this injustice. Some form of regulation is absolutely essential, and I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will take action without delay.

Major Lloyd George: The last two hon. Gentlemen who addressed the House rather complained, I gather, about the brevity of my observations. I have given two reasons for that brevity. One was that I was particularly anxious to speak on the subject which was before the House, and the other was that the very full explanations given when the levy was first brought in to this House have been published, and I naturally assumed that my hon. Friends took some trouble to read them before voting here. Both the two levies, which are now amalgamated into one, were accompanied by very full explanations, and I assumed naturally, that m hon. Friends had already learned all about them. I did not want to waste the time of the House, and that is the only reason I was brief.
One or two of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) referred to this levy and possibly other charges. I am sure he will forgive me if I only say to him now that a good many of the things which are foreshadowed in the White Paper will be matters of very serious discussion. For

instance, take the medical service. Naturally, it is a very big question in which the details will have to be settled, and all I can say at the moment is that the two levies previously administered by the Council will now be taken over by the Government administration under this Order. The hon. Member knows as well as I do the purposes for which these two levies were raised. With regard to the future of them, it may be necessary—I do not know—under the Greene award, or under the White Paper, to have other charges, but that of course will be a matter for further discussion in this House. I can only say that the only real change is that the administration of these two levies has now been made into one, and has been transferred, in fact, to my Department.
With regard to the closing of mines, I am very much alive to the point which the hon. Member raised about the transfer of labour. I took very careful note of what he said on that matter. It may be that where a transfer is necessary it will be possible to help, for instance, in travelling expenses. When it comes to the question of closing the mine itself, the responsibility for that is entirely mine and nobody else's. The final decision is mine, to be delegated possibly to a controller. That is all I can say on the matter, because so many of the subjects involved are at this moment the subject of discussion in the reorganisation necessary to fulfil some of the things in the White Paper and the Greene award.

Mr. Walkden: Can the Minister not give us any guarantee that the mere publication of the fact that this Order has been approved by the House will not be used by coal merchants to increase the price of coal to consumers by 1s. or 2s. per ton or 1d. or 2d. for a little bag?

Major Lloyd George: This Order is not in itself concerned with the price to the consumer. It would be useless to me to give the undertaking asked for on a matter that has nothing to do with it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Coal (Charges) Order, 1942, dated 3rd June, 1942, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 9th June, be approved.

FINANCE (No. 2) ACT, 1940.

Resolved,
That the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order, 1942, dated 1st June, 1942, made by the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 9th June, be approved."—[Captain Crook shank.]

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Swindon United Gas Company, which was presented to this House on 2nd June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Kettering Gas Company, which was presented to this House on 3rd June and published, be approved."—[Mr. T. Smith.]

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Tenterden, a copy of which was presented to this House on 23rd June, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

SOFT FRUIT (MAXIMUM PRICES) ORDER.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Sir Waldron Smithers: I desire to raise the question of the disastrous position into which the small fruit growers of North-West Kent have been placed owing to a stroke of the pen last week by the Ministry of Food. I regret very much if I have placed the Parliamentary Secretary in any awkward position by precipitating this matter, but it is really urgent. The fruit is ripening and has got to be dealt with. I might have

given him a chance to answer the first Supplementary Question to-day, but his original answer went such a little way to meet the case, and showed such a want of appreciation of the facts that were put before the officials of his Ministry for three hours last Saturday morning and two hours last Monday morning, that I had no alternative but to raise this matter as soon as possible. This question affects 300 or 400 devoted, small loyal growers, many of them small family businesses. They have holdings of from three to 20 acres. They just do not know where they are, and I have had this morning at least 12 or 14 telephone calls to the effect, "For heaven's sake, tell us what our position is. We do not know whether we are liable to legal proceedings if we sell either to the jam factories or to the public or in the open market." What is the position? The district which I and the hon. and gallant Member for Seven-oaks (Colonel Ponsonby) represent is roughly the North-West Kent area and is roughly along the North Downs. That area produces its crop about three weeks later than, shall we say, the Southampton area. We have always prided ourselves for years that we produce there the best dessert strawberries in the whole of England.
I want to make it quite clear with regard to any figures I give that this matter has been so rushed that though I have done my level best to go to the growers, any figures I give will be average figures. For the past three weeks the most favoured areas like Southampton have been enjoying prices of 2s. 9d., 2s. 3d., 1s. 9d., down to 1s. 2d. per lb. in the lowest county for their strawberries. In the middle of last week representatives of the jam processors came round, I understand with the permission of the authority of the Ministry of Food, and said to these growers, "We pre-empt"—which I believe means commandeering—"the whole of your crop at 7½. per lb." I believe it is a fact that I cannot go to my neighbours next door, and there are several hundred of them whom I have known all my life, who are not only my constituents but my friends, and buy two lbs. of strawberries from them without being subject to legal proceedings.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): May I correct that at once? It is not so.

Sir W. Smithers: My hon. Friend says it is not so. I can only say that I only know what I have been told, and that is what I have been told. The representative of the Ministry came round and said, "We pre-empt the whole of your crop at 7½d. per lb." They understand that to mean that they cannot sell to the public. My argument is reinforced, because at the conference at the Ministry we were told, "If you can get permission, you may get retail prices." One of the best farmers in Kent, a brilliant farmer, applied a fortnight ago for a retail licence and has not yet received any reply.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: May I ask—

Sir W. Smithers: I really must continue. I have a statment to make. The Ministry has put up two lines, I will not say of defence, but of explanation. One is that the crop in Kent is a heavier crop than the crop in the Southampton area. Since this morning I have been in communication with the local representative of the National Farmers' Union, and I have received a message from him which I will read to the House:
It is not true that Kent grows heavier tonnage strawberries, but we do grow better fruit.'
In order to check that statement, which was given in a hurry, I rang up another well-known grower. He said that it might be true that in some cases we grow a heavier crop in West Kent than in Southampton, but that is due to the fact that we spend £30 or £40 an acre more on manures. Another defence by the Ministry is that the prices were agreed upon between the Ministry of Food and the growers' representatives. I am sure that that statement was made in all sincerity, but it is not quite in accord with the facts. I understand, again from a telephone message to-day, that the representatives of the Kent growers were called to the Ministry of Food at very short notice to discuss prices, and that time would not permit of their consulting the local branches. I was informed over the telephone to-day that a Kent representative did say, at the meeting at which the prices were fixed, that he did not agree, and that Kent would be dissatisfied.
After all the tremendous work of the last few days, we are told to-day that the

result of our representations has been that if a man has only one acre he shall be given certain exemptions and be allowed to deal more freely. I say, in all kindness, that that is really a ridiculous suggestion. What is to happen to, let us say, Mr. Dewberry, who owns one acre, and to old Bill Blundell, next door, who owns an acre and a half? They are working under exactly similar conditions, in similar small family businesses, working from morning to night; and one man is to be given a preference, and the other is to come under the 7½d. scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head.

Mr. E. Walkden: Rubbish.

Sir W. Smithers: Wait a minute; I have been studying these figures for about a week—in fact, I have been doing so all my life. Curiously enough, last night a representative of the Ministry of Food, who lives at Paddock Wood, rang me up, and said, "I have heard about this discussion, and I think the growers are having a hard deal." He added that—quite independently of us, and not knowing what we had done—he had sent up a representation to the Ministry that he thought that the cost of production, under present circumstances, was about 1s. a lb. These small growers have very little capital. They live for the best part of the year on borrowed money, relying on the strawberry crop to pay off the overdraft, to pay the rent, and to keep them.
Another difficult point has arisen. We understood at these two conferences at the Ministry that what they call preemption notices have been sent out. Some farmers and small growers received them; some did not. We were advised, although not legally—it was an expression of opinion—that if a grower had not received a pre-emption notice he was allowed to go ahead. It was most unfair on those who had received pre-emption notices and who wanted to be loyal that others, who had not received them, should be allowed to sell at the expense of their neighbours. This morning, from 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock, my telephone was busy, with people saying, "We do not know where we are; are we breaking the law?" Some have returned their preemption notices and have written to apply for retail licences, in the hope that that will protect them if they sell. When we are told that the only thing the Ministry can do for us is to exempt the man with


one acre, that does not meet the case at all. The only way to keep these small people alive is to give them at least 1s. a lb. for their jam strawberries. That would settle the whole thing; and it would allow the little man to sell what he could at 1s. 2d. or 1s. 3d.
I can assure the Minister that there is very bitter feeling. When the growers are told that only the man with one acre will be entitled to this preferential treatment, those who have three acres say, "We will plough up two acres, and make the best we can of the other one." That sounds drastic, but one of the growers said at the conference, "I shall not pick my strawberries." The chairman said, "Is not that anti-national?" "Not a bit," the man replied; "I have not the money to pay the pickers." These people do not want to make a profit. All they ask is to get out square on the year. To offer them 7½d. a pound—4½d. below the cost of production—is a grave injustice. It means wiping out a lot of these people by a stroke of the pen. I reverently say, Thank God the House of Commons is still left, where the grievances and difficulties of small non-vocal people can still be ventilated. No advocate has ever gone into a court of law with a better case than I have on this question. I know the difficulties of the Ministry of Food, but when a mistake is pointed out to them let them do the big thing and give the 1s. a pound, which is only an economic price and the cost of production, and so save these little men from severe financial loss, and, in many cases, from ruin.

Colonel Ponsonby: I would like to ask the Minister whether, in arriving at prices in a case like this, his Department take into account the different conditions of climate and the different costs of production in the various areas. As my hon. Friend has said, my constituency adjoins his, and I have a number of small growers who are exactly in the position that he has represented. I have had letters on the subject, and they represent exactly what my hon. Friend has said. I have nothing to add to the case which he has put except, to put it in a nutshell, to say—and I am speaking only from the question of price—that these growers are asked to accept 7½d. for an article which costs them 1s. Their living is being

jeopardised. There are some 300 to 400 growers affected. The case is one of urgency, and I beg of the Minister to look into it at once and, if possible, to realise that it is a case for immediate action and serious consideration.

Mr. Palmer: I want to bring up this matter from a different area and one which rivals that of the previous speakers, namely, Hampshire. I do not want to confine what I am going to say to the question of strawberries but to widen the scope of the discussion a little. This discussion has come up at very short notice. Owing to representations that I have received from my constituency in the last week or so, I hoped to go there on Saturday and to obtain considerably more information on the whole subject before bringing this matter forward than I naturally have now. But I have had enough representations and queries to make 6ome points which I am very anxious to bring to the attention of the Minister. I assure the Minister that I feel sympathy with him in coming into the middle of this difficulty so shortly after he has come to this Ministry. I am sure that he has the sympathy of everybody in this matter, more particularly as this is a difficult and complicated question. But I would like him to look at it, if he will, from the point of view of whether or not he is not seriously jeopardising the future of a large proportion of the fruit growers of this country. I went the other day to see a constituent of mine who showed me her balance-sheet for last year. I am speaking from recollection as I have not been able to check up. The total turnover shown on the balance-sheet was something in the neighbourhood of £1,200 a year, and it showed a loss of some £300 on last year's prices. Alarm was expressed that this year's prices might in fact be down. I will read an extract from a letter from this particular grower, dated 15th June:
We are ordered by the Ministry of Food to pick the gooseberries for jam manufacture or processing only at 2¾d. per lb. This is an even smaller price than last year. In view of the rise in the cost of labour (men from 48s. to 60s. per week, and women in proportion) this means they must be picked and sold at a definite loss. If the prices of other fruit this season are in line with these the position will indeed be deplorable and mean we cannot continue growing fruit. The average pre-war price of gooseberries, was about 5d. per lb. when labour was very much cheaper. Several


growers feel they will be compelled to give up this year unless something is done.
Surely, the real point is that the cost of production in the shape of wages and of materials has inevitably risen, and in arriving at maximum prices in the Maximum Price Order, if you reduce prices this year and discount the effect of the rise in costs, you are inevitably going to create an injustice to the grower. I want, therefore, to repeat the question which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) asked: What is the principle which is adopted in arriving at these maximum prices? Is it simply that you look at the crop and say that it is a large crop this year and, therefore, the price will be low, or is the principle adopted, that the fruit growers of this country have a contribution to make to the national interest and the war effort in exactly the same way as the general farmers, and that it is fully recognised by the nation that the fruit growers have an exactly comparable contribution to make in their own sphere and should be regarded and treated from that point of view? I know that the Minister will tell us that, in arriving at this price, he has done so in full consultation and agreement with the representatives of the National Farmers' Union Fruit Committee. That may be so. I do not want to dispute that at all, but I come back to ask him these two questions: What principle did that representative body act upon in arriving at this price; and, secondly, Was he certain in his own mind that that representative body is really representative of the small fruit growers of the country?
I do not want to say anything at all in criticism of the National Farmers' Union, who have done magnificent work for the farmers of the country, but it is my impression, without checking it up in any detail, that a large proportion of fruit growers are not, in fact, members of the National Farmers' Union. I would like to ask the Minister whether, in approaching this very difficult question of fruit prices, he would not think it worth while to take the broad point of view of the national interest and go into the whole question with the representatives of the fruit growers and see whether or not what he is now doing is, in fact, going to preserve the fruit growing industry of this country both as a national industry and as a contribution to the war effort.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I hope that the House does not imagine that, because this question has been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chislehurst (Sir. W. Smithers)—and on two recent occasions when he has raised matters on the Adjournment, I have followed him—I did not seek, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye in order to tender congratulations to the Minister and to his Noble Friend for the excellent way in which they have tried to deal with both the early and the late strawberry and soft fruit crops this year as compared with 1941. I do not think it is quite true to say that it costs 1s. a lb. to produce strawberries to-day.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my word doubted? I have gone very carefully into all the available figures and statistics and the figure has been backed up by a Ministry of Food official. The average cost of production is 1s. per lb. this year.

Mr. Walkden: The hon. Gentleman has just told the House how glad he is that we are able to discuss these matters here in what he terms the highest court of the land and I think I am entitled to express doubts about the figures he has brought to the House. I would ask him to produce evidence, so that we may judge more fairly, to show the average prices before the war, in the Kent area, at this time of year. Did they ever, for instance, during the second and third week in June average 70s. per cwt.? They may have in some areas, but Kent strawberries were being sold in Lancashire in 1938 at lower prices than those which growers are receiving under this Order to-day. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I can give him the names of merchants in Manchester and Liverpool who in 1938—which happened to be a slightly better year than the year before—were able to offer strawberries retail at 7½d. to 8½d. per lb. after bringing them some 250 miles from the area about which the hon. Member is talking to-day. Why has this case been brought to the House and why are these people complaining? I think it is fairly true to say—and the hon. Gentleman has thrown some light on it—that the people in this area cannot retail their strawberries any more because they have no licence.
We have good reason to congratulate the Minister of Food on stopping the
racket which took place in 1941. Let me tell the House why. This time last year


I went to Tiptree, in Essex, with friends of mine who had been dealing in the London fruit and vegetable markets for years with growers from that area. Up to 1941 they had been obtaining adequate and generous supplies, but when this Order came into force strawberries from that area ceased to arrive at Covent Garden and Spitalfields Markets. Why? Because in that area the growers were able to sell to motorists, passers-by and others all the strawberries they could possibly pick at a retail price, I believe, of 1s. 2d. a lb. They were selling at 2s. 4d. a basket on the one hand, whereas the Ministry guaranteed them, as growers, only 70s. per cwt. But they did not send those strawberries to market; they sold to motorists and to all comers in the area. What has the Minister done this year? He has accepted some part of the advice we have tried to give him, that there should be a canalisation of the fruit supply from these areas and that it should be directed either to factories or to markets where it is most needed and distributed to other parts of the country. The growers of Kent are prevented this year from selling all their strawberries to passers-by. There are no motorists now, or at any rate very few. The growers have either to sell to factories, or to merchants who purchase for factories, or get whatever price they can, so long as they do not exceed on the spot the Maximum Prices Order. Up to last Saturday growers were able to get 168s. per cwt., as growers.

Sir W. Smithers: We had no strawberries to pick.

Mr. Walkden: Strawberries were being sold from the Kent area by the ton in London last week at 2s. 3d. per lb.

Sir W. Smithers: But they did not come from Kent. That is the whole point.

Mr. Walkden: Many of these strawberries came from Kent. Last week the Order came into effect and the price slumped from 168s. to 70s. What the growers have done is to forget to provide themselves with retailers' licences. You cannot blame the Minister for that. We, as customers, who do not happen to live in strawberry areas feel rather pleased with the arrangement and would like to congratulate the Minister. The racket by growers in Tiptree who in one week-end last year sold between 4,000 and 5,000

baskets of strawberries to passing motorists has been stopped. The Minister will explain what has been done. I understand, too, that tomatoes have been so distributed that in parts of the country where they are not normally obtainable they are available to-day. As I understand it, the Minister said he wished to commandeer all crops up to a point and transfer them to factories for the making of adequate supplies of jam for the winter months.
I remember that on 30th April, 1931, when I made my first contribution to a Debate in this House, I referred to factories that were closed because they could not obtain fruit, and others that were likely to be in difficulties, because the Minister would not take action. Well, he took action and the result is that we get an improved Order. What would the hon. Member for Chislehurst have said if coal-miners in Yorkshire had said, "We intend to sell locally. You people in London must starve because we are able to get better prices locally"? We know that there must be distribution throughout the country and here the Minister has tried to do a good job of work. If the price is low, I am sorry that the farmers in Kent did not take advantage of consultation with the Minister at the right time. But the price is not low; it is very high indeed. Scottish growers, I see, are to be protected and growers in Northumberland, Cumberland, Durham and Westmorland are to enjoy 224s. per cwt., as growers, up to Saturday next. After next Saturday, the price in that area will drop to 168s., and after 7th July, the grower's price will fall to 74s. Why? Because the crop is later in the Northern parts of the country.

Sir W. Smithers: That is our argument. The hon. Member condemns his whole argument when he says that. Our case is that our crop is three weeks later than the crop in other parts of the country.

Mr. Walkden: I was married on a 21st June, and my wife reminds me, every 21st June, that I have to get a basket of strawberries, because by some accident I had a basket of strawberries foisted on me on my wedding day. They were Kent strawberries. On 21st June, I always take home to my wife a basket of strawberries, if they are available. In the Northern part of England, in Lancashire and Yorkshire, Kent strawberries were the only ones that we knew of, before the


last war, as being the first available to the consumer. Kent strawberries came first and Hampshire strawberries followed.

Sir W. Smithers: Really, I must protest. I believe that in a Debate on the Adjournment, I am not allowed to make a second speech, but may I interrupt the hon. Member to say his speech is so wanting in knowledge of the whole situation that it can be absolutely smashed to pieces. All we are—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must give someone else a chance of smashing it.

Sir W. Smithers: May I simply ask the hon. Member, who said that the growers sell the strawberries at the roadside, how the growers get on when they live in lanes where there are no motorists? We are not asking for profiteering prices in wartime; all we are asking is 1s. a lb. for jam strawberries, which is the cost of production.

Mr. Walkden: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman may not make a second speech. To continue my remarks, Kent strawberries were available in Lancashire up to the time when I was last resident there 14 years ago, and even last year and the year before they were available in Lancashire and Yorkshire, although in smaller quantities. The hon. Member has come to the House to complain because the Minister has taken certain action and the growers are not able to get the price which they think they should get and the price which they were able to get up to Saturday last. I hope the Minister will not give way in the least to this agitation. I hope he will protect the consumers, and that, if need be, he will commandeer a greater quantity of strawberries, because I am not interested very much—except on that one day to which I have referred—whether I get strawberries or not; I am interested, however, in whether we are to have an adequate and generous supply of jam next winter. This being the case, I say that the Parliamentary Secretary's duty is to tell his Noble Friend that we in the House feel that all the strawberries that can be gathered should go to the factories, and that, generally speaking, the rest of the community do not care very much whether strawberries and cream are available or not. The growers have been guaranteed prices the like of which, up

to 1938, they had never dreamed of at this time of the year.

Sir W. Smithers: That is not true.

Mr. Walken: I say it is true. We are very grateful to the Minister for taking such stern and resolute action in dealing with this very difficult problem.

Colonel Ponsonby: The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) quoted the prices of Kent strawberries in Lancashire in 1938. Has he any idea of what were the costs of production, wages, fertilisers and so on, in 1938?

Mr. Walkden: Wages may have gone up 50 per cent., and fertilisers may have gone up even 100 per cent. in price, if you like, but the general costs of production of strawberries have not risen to the extent that retail prices have risen, taking them on the average.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I do not want to enter into a controversy about detailed figures, but I Want to say a few words about the general position created by the issuing of these price control Orders for fruit. Before doing so, I am tempted by the remarks that have been made in the last two or three minutes to tell the House, with due humility, that I have lived all my life in the county of Sussex, between Kent and Hampshire, and that both Kent and Hampshire produce strawberries a little bit earlier than Sussex, although the Hampshire strawberries come in first every year and the Kent strawberries second; and then, if we are lucky enough, we can get some in Sussex. I shall not enter into arguments about costs of production, but at the present time I happen to be the chairman of an agricultural committee upstairs, which is the recipient of complaints from many constituencies. These come in from many hon. Members and filter through my hands. I am quite convinced that very definite harm is being done by the late date at which price control Orders for fruit are being issued. I am not at all convinced that if they had been issued earlier, the prices might not have been adequate; perhaps they would, but I do not want to argue about that. I am convinced, however, that it is a bad policy to issue prices for perishable fruit, such as strawberries, gooseberries and so on, after the ordinary laws of supply and demand have created another price in the market.
The result of this, as I see it, is as follows. At the present time there is a very considerable crop of strawberries and gooseberries, with other fruit to follow, but there is a very grave risk that much of it will not be picked. I believe that risk is very largely due to the fact that prices, whether they were right or wrong, were issued too late. I suggest that if the Ministry are not in a position to issue the controlled prices earlier, it is better not to issue them. It is most important that these crops should be brought into consumption this year and produced again and brought into consumption next year, but if they are not picked this year, there is the danger that they will not be grown next year. It is most important that the crops produced should be picked now, and that sufficient satisfaction should exist among producers to induce them to do their utmost in future years. I feel that, in connection with some of these price matters, there is a tendency on the part of the Government to overlook the very great difference in costs, both in production and in marketing, between the little man and the big man. We want to get the little man's crop into consumption, just as much as the big man's crop. I hope this matter will be very seriously taken into consideration by the Minister, not only for this season but for the seasons which are to come.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): I think it is very evident from what has been said that there is a considerable conflict of view on this very complicated matter. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir Waldron Smithers) said when he regretted having to raise this question at such short notice; I recognise that it is because we are dealing with a very perishable crop. First of all I should like to consider the background to these prices. The prices for strawberries and other soft fruits were determined after the fullest consultation with the representatives of the growers through the National Farmers' Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst seems to doubt whether the prices which were determined had been agreed to by the growers' representatives, but I can assure him he may trust what I say when I state that the prices were agreed to by the growers' representatives. More than that, in the case of strawberries they were higher than the prices originally suggested

by the growers' representatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer) raised a very significant matter, when he suggested it might well be that the growers of strawberries and other soft fruits were not fully represented in the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Palmer: Particularly the smaller ones.

Mr. Mabane: I think the House will recognise our difficulty. The National Farmers' Union and the Soft Fruit Committee of the National Farmers' Union are the only growers' representatives we know. There is no other organised body, and, if we cannot deal with them, whom are we to deal with? I believe the date on which the matter was finally settled was 29th May, although there were discussions much earlier than that. On that occasion we were recommended prices which would not, in fact, have worked out at 7½d. per lb., but at 7¼d. per lb. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who is an authority on these matters, said it would be much better had the prices been settled earlier. This is obviously a matter for consideration, but the view has been taken that it is in the growers' interests to settle prices as late as possible, because indeed the crops may be altered by one night's frost. It was because we deferred issuing the Price Order until we did, that we were able, in view of subsequent developments in weather conditions, to make the growers' basic price 7½d. per lb. instead of 7¼d. The House must recognise that the basic price of 7½d. is not the only price. There are three prices. Firstly, there is the growers' basic price of 7½d.; then there is the grower-salesman's price, which works out at approximately 9d. per lb., and, finally, there is the retail price at 1s. 2½d. per lb.

Sir W. Smithers: Our complaint, and we believe we are correct, is that the whole of the crop of many of our growers was pre-empted at 7½d. four or five days ago.

Mr. Mabane: Let me continue with this question of price. I think we must recognise that, when prices of this character have to be fixed, they must be fixed on a wide basis. You cannot vary the price from district to district, and between grower and grower. We must recognise


that, whatever price is fixed as a maximum price, someone is going to make a loss. If we went to the furthest corner of the Kingdom to find the least efficient producer, the maximum price would be too high. Therefore, I must not attempt to dispute the suggestion that some people may make a loss.

Mr. Bossom: The Parliamentary Secretary used the words "least efficient." Farmers in Kent are as efficient as any in the country, but their crops are not ready as early as others, and consequently all our strawberries are sold at the lower price. They will not want to do it another year.

Mr. Mabane: Perhaps I may continue to develop my argument. I was coming to the question of whether the price is adequate. It is now said that this price provides no one with a profit. All the evidence which the growers' representatives give us—and it is not our experience that they advise the Minister of Food to fix prices which are too low—shows that the prices allow the producer to make a profit. It must be remembered that, in the ordinary way when there is no control, prices vary very greatly during the season. At the beginning of the season prices are high, and later on they fall to a very low level indeed. Here there is a price of 7½d. for the whole of the crop, and that, we are informed, works out at an average which is better than would be obtained in the ordinary way with prices high at the beginning and then falling very low.

Sir W. Smithers: rose—

Mr. Mabane: The hon. Member agreed that this was a very complicated matter, and it is difficult to keep the thread of it unless I can keep to my argument. It was suggested that the small man was badly hit by this Order, and that he ought to be given special consideration. There is a great deal in that, and, since the hon. Member for Chislehurst raised this matter, the whole position of the small man has been very carefully reviewed. I should like to say in passing that it is sometimes difficult to determine who is a small man. The appeal is made for the small man, and I have done my best to discover what may be a small man—the man who produces an acre or under, which is a lot of strawberries—

but then the hon. Member for Chislehurst says that he is not a small man and gives a figure of 20 acres.

Sir W. Smithers: That is really not fair.

Mr. Mabane: I took down the words of the hon. Member. He said from three to 20 acres.

Sir W. Smithers: That is the figure for the whole holding, but the average strawberry acreage is three. You cannot know the details like I do.

Mr. Mabane: I agree that we can only do our best. The position of the small man has been very carefully considered in the last 48 hours, and, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, a concession was made which I think is very valuable indeed. The small man is immediately to be issued with a general licence which will enable him to sell his strawberries or other soft fruit or cherries at wholesale or retail prices according to the nature of the transaction. If he elects to sell direct to consumers, it will be necessary to obtain a retailer's licence from his local committee. That puts him in a much better position. The hon. Member for Don-caster may disagree with what has been done.

Mr. Walkden: I do, very strongly in deed.

Mr. Mabane: The small man will be able to sell at an advantage—9d. or, with the appropriate licence, 1s. 2½d. From what the hon. Member for Chislehurst said, it appears that he was under the impression that growers who grew more than an acre could not engage in this sort of transaction at all. But that is not the case. The grower, no matter how large his holding may be, may sell as a grower-salesman, that is, at the wholesale price, or as a retailer, that is at the retail price if he holds the appropriate licence. What are the conditions of holding the licence? He must be able to show that it has been his practice in the past to do that sort of thing. There would be no strawberry jam for the population at all if a grower, however large, could sell the whole of his produce at either the wholesale or the retail price. There would be none left. Therefore, if he can show that in the past he has sold at wholesale or at retail, he can get a licence to sell the same proportion


of his crop in that way this year as he did in the past. Many of the growers who were in a position to do it have already provided themselves with licences and are able to behave in that way.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the hon. Gentleman do what he can for those who apply for a licence to get it without a fortnight's delay, because the crop is ripening fast and, unless they can get it, they may be breaking the law?

Mr. Mabane: I will if the hon. Gentleman will give me the name of the farmer with less than 48 hours' delay, which is the time that has elapsed since I asked him to give it me. I asked him for the name on Monday or Tuesday, and I shall be glad to make immediate inquiries as soon as I can get to know the name of the farmer who asked for a licence and has been unable to get it.
May I turn now to the matter of distribution? Our purpose is to secure the best possible distribution of soft and stone fruit. It is almost impossible to get an equitable distribution if it is being distributed as fresh fruit. The most equitable way of securing just distribution is by converting it into some form of preserve. It is for that reason that the Ministry has made it the object of its policy this year to secure that such fruit as is available shall reach the public in as nearly as possible equal quantities by pre-empting as much of the crop as they may so that it can be converted into a form of preserve.
It has been said by the hon. Member for Winchester that the prices in some cases are lower than last year. But it is a very much bigger crop. I think he asked on what principle the prices were determined. Clearly the guiding principle is that a price shall be determined which is fair to the average grower and also to the public. I have just had a

message from the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union confirming that they represent a very large number of small growers, down to one acre at least. That is the information now given me. I am also told that it is strongly representative of the North-West Kent growers of strawberries.

Mr. Walkden: Did the National Farmers' Union negotiate the price, and do they regard it as equitable and just?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, I have said that. That is quite true. I think the concession that has been made to-day is a most important one. The Ministry has no desire whatever to make the way hard for any grower. I was very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman behind me say that one effect of the concession to enable growers of an acre or less to sell at these very favourable prices will be that the grower of more than an acre—of three acres, say—will now plough up two acres in order to get the higher price for one. I sincerely appeal to him to dissuade people from that course of action, which I am sure the whole House would agree to be against the national interest. The Ministry sets out to determine a price which shall be fair and shall protect the national interest and, as this brief but valuable Debate has revealed, in making these determinations it is making a way through a most complicated and difficult business. It cannot possibly please everyone but it does its best to please as many as it can.

Sir W. Smithers: May I say, in reference to the news which has been received since I addressed the House, that my information is that the representatives of the North-West Kent growers are two apple and cherry growers from East Kent?

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.